1964-08-20

Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies, in French and English, of the agreement establishing intergovernmental arrangements for a global, commercial satellite communications system. This agreement is being signed in Washington today.



ONTARIO-ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR-ELECTRIC STATION

['Last week I was asked a question along these lines. I indicated that we were making an assessment of the number of Canadians there and that we had asked Britain and the United States to assist our mission in making sure that precautions were taken for the security and welfare of Canadian subjects. I cannot give the house the precise number at this moment, but I will.']
Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members that the premier of Ontario and the chairman of Ontario hydro are today announcing in Toronto that Ontario hydro has decided to build a one million kilowatt nuclear-electric power station. This project is the second largest nuclear power station planned anywhere in the world.
This decision is a major landmark for Canada in two respects. Ontario hydro has selected the type of nuclear power station that has been pioneered and developed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Also, Ontario hydro will build this station as a commercial venture. The two earlier and smaller nuclear power stations in Canada near Chalk River and at Douglas point on lake Huron were, in large measure, prototypes for purposes of experiment and demonstration.
By reason of the contingent financial risk in building a very large nuclear power station at this relatively early stage in nuclear development, participation by governments was desirable. No full sized nuclear power station of this type is yet in operation, so there remains a slight measure of uncertainty today as to how well they will perform. This will change when the 200,000 kilowatt nuclear power station at Douglas point, which will soon be completed, has shown that it operates successfully.
Agreement has been reached among the federal government, the Ontario government and Ontario hydro regarding the financing of this project. The estimated cost of the nuclear power station is $266 million, and this money will be subscribed by the three parties as follows. Ontario hydro will be responsible for an amount equal to the cost of the coal burning power station of the same capacity they are building at Lambton, estimated to be $120 million. The balance will be subscribed by the two governments in the ratio of 1.2 to 1, with the federal government advancing the larger portion. In terms of the present estimates of cost the federal government will subscribe $79.5 million and the Ontario government $66.5 million. It is anticipated that the capital advanced by the parties will be fully repaid with interest at normal rates out of the net operating revenues of the station. There is a good possibility of profit in government investments and reduced costs in the production of power. If all goes as planned, base load nuclear power will be cheaper than electricity generated from coal burning stations in the Ontario hydro system.
The location of the station has not yet been decided. As hon. members will know, the atomic energy control board has to be satisfied regarding safety and other aspects of any nuclear power plant for location at a particular site before it will issue a permit for construction. The board will wish to make a careful study of the proposed plant design before approving a specific site location.
I am sure all members of the house will share my deep satisfaction that the energetic and imaginative efforts of the federal government, through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, to bring Canada to the fore in the field of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, has led and is leading to constructive and profitable undertakings of this kind.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a most interesting announcement by the Minister of Industry, and I am sure everyone in Canada will be delighted. The atomic energy program, which has been operating in Canada now for about 20 years, has proved a major success. Successive governments have shown equal interest in this type of development.
7052	HOUSE OF
Construction of Nuclear Power Stations In 1958, when we had the privilege of holding office and the problem of the development of atomic energy in Canada was under consideration, acting on the advice of the highly skilled personnel of Atomic Energy and using our own judgment we decided that we would advance the program by two years, which we did, taking a calculated risk that the development of the use of natural uranium and heavy water would really fulfil the expectations of our highly competent scientists.
That paid off, and our program was advanced. The nuclear development program has been operating the small nuclear reactor near Chalk River for almost three years now, and it is the basic plant to indicate the cost of producing power by this means. As a result of that decision which we made some years ago CANDU, the larger plant near Kincardine, has gone ahead and I think is to be in operation in 1965, working according to plan.
This new announcement is further confirmation of the successful work of our atomic energy scientists, who deserve the thanks of all Canada for what they have done over the years. Their activities have been observed by the world. Other nations working with a different type of uranium-enriched uranium -and other modifying agents, were perhaps earlier in the field, but they have come to see that natural uranium plus heavy water is likely to be the most economical method of producing electric power through the use of atomic energy.
The government of India and governments of other countries in the world are interested in Canada's satisfactory experiment, and I think we have a great future in the export of our knowledge with regard to this method of producing power. Almost every country is now power hungry. Even in our own country the supply of hydroelectric power has about reached its limit except in respect of a few major developments that may be under way. With the steady increase year after year in the demand for electric power I think this method will provide the answer, and in the long run it will relieve Canada, and certainly the province of Ontario, from dependence upon the import of United States coal for steam power stations. It has been estimated that by 1980, I believe, if we did not have this other source of power we would have to expend about $300 million a year for the import of United States coal. So the balance of payments will eventually be affected to our advantage.


I am sure everybody welcomes this announcement by the minister, and I should like to pay my tribute to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, with which I have worked for a number of years, and to the scientists who, working here in Canada, have produced something which has received world wide attention and has proved a great success.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party wish to join in expressing a word of commendation to the Minister of Industry, to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and to all those responsible for concluding this agreement. We feel this is another forward step in developing the use of atomic energy for the generation of electric power.
At the present time experiments are going on in various parts of the world in the field of atomic energy plants. At the present time the cost per unit is still uneconomic compared to hydro and thermal power, where there is cheap fuel available. But undoubtedly the cost of both hydro power and thermal power plants is going up, and with additional research in the field of atomic energy the costs in this field are going down. Undoubtedly the time is coming fairly soon, and I think engineers estimate that time at between ten and 12 years, when atomic energy will be competitive. We look forward to the day when we will build a national power grid in Canada, in which we will make use of hydroelectric power, harnessed tidal power, using atomic power particularly for peaking purposes. This would round out our whole power picture in Canada.
This is certainly a field of endeavour in which government planning and public enterprise can play a very important part in industrial development. This is certainly one of the legitimate fields for public enterprise and government planning. We commend the minister for this forward step and wish him every success in this undertaking.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we too share in the approval that has been expressed of such an agreement as has been announced today, as it relates to the production of power. It is to be noted that this project indicates the tremendous advance that Canadian scientists have made toward the economic development of nuclear power. Not only does it relate to our ability to produce reactors, but also to our scientists who have improved methods that make economical and practical the function of such reactors.

I note that this new project is going to mean a tremendous increase in the demands for uranium and heavy water. Certainly it will have widespread effects throughout our economy. I note too that the power to be produced by this project will feed into the area around the city of Toronto. I would refer to the need we have in this country for a national power grid, and I trust that the government is taking steps to bring about discussions with the provinces on such a project, because we will not have economic use of the electricity produced unless we do have a national grid.
I am somewhat concerned about the cost involved in this project. I note that it is going to cost the federal government some $80 million in addition to what will be raised by the other two contracting parties. This brings up the point again that money used in this way for public purposes falls into the category of social capital, and that there really is no need for the cost of such projects to be doubled as far as the taxpayers are concerned before they are paid off if we would make a few adjustments in our financial setup.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we would commend the minister for concluding this agreement. We trust that further developments to meet the need for electricity in the rest of the country as well will go forward on an even more satisfactory basis.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, it gives us pleasure to join with the spokesmen for the other parties in saying how glad we are to have heard the announcement just made by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury). We are happy to find that the government has decided to provide funds for the construction of atomic power plants.
We wish to support the government's efforts in the development of such power plants for peaceful purposes. We hope Canada will play a leading role in the use of the atom for works of peace and that people will finally stop thinking of this famous atomic power only in terms of destruction, so that the human race may some day benefit from this marvellous gift God has given to man.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of
Inquiries of the Ministry State for External Affairs in a position to say what has been the result of discussions between the secretary general or someone acting on his behalf and Archbishop Makarios regarding the increase, expansion or augmentation of the powers of the United Nations force? Has there been any forward step in this connection? Further, is he in a position to make any observation on the statement made by the French information minister calling for an end of foreign interference in Cyprus? What is the meaning of that expression, Cyprus being associated with the Congo and South Viet Nam in the statement to which I have alluded?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that there had been an improvement in the situation in Cyprus. As a result of the negotiations between the United Nations and the government of Cyprus, agreement had been reached with regard to the problems I described at that time. In so far as the further extension of the powers of the force is concerned, this is still under discussion and we are awaiting a report.
I am not in a position to comment on the statement attributed to the minister of information of France concerning foreign entanglements in Cyprus. I would simply point out, however, with regard to the statement made by another country, that NATO's interest in the Cyprus situation simply involves the natural concern of NATO with the problems of any member of the alliance. In this connection I am happy to note, as I am sure the right hon. gentleman and hon. members will be, that the governments of Turkey and Greece have returned to NATO the forces which they withdrew for the purpose of meeting what they regarded as their foreign policy, responsibilities in connection with Cyprus. NATO has a definite interest in this matter, but it is not an interest that is contrary in any way to the initiative of the United Nations, nor would it in any way interfere with this initiative.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that the hon. gentleman has suggested I might agree with the commendation of the fact that both Turkey and Greece have once more shown their faith by action in NATO, I want to say that this is something that gives new hope of NATO assuring the peace of Europe.
I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether there has been any reaction on the part of the government of Canada to the
7054	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry representations from France concerning the question of foreign interference, to which I alluded in my earlier question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not aware that there have been any representations. There has been no official indication of any objection registered by France to the action taken by countries other than those directly involved in the Cyprus situation. Another country did make an objection. As a matter of fact the participation of France in the proceedings of the NATO council warrants me to believe that my interpretation is the correct one.


Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister clarify the situation with regard to the financing of the United Nations force in Cyprus, in the light of the statement by the secretary general today that the force may have to be withdrawn even before September 26 because of the lack of funds to maintain it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is true the secretary general indicated today that the financing of the Cyprus operation is causing him concern. As I said in the house a week ago, Canada and Ireland, the only countries which with Britain are paying all the costs of their contingents, are not participating in the fund which is being provided voluntarily by certain countries. The fund is now delinquent by some $2 million. I would hope that as a result of the statement made by the secretary general today, other countries which have an equal obligation with regard to peace keeping under the charter of the United Nations will see that the United Nations is not rendered incapable of performing its functions.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of rapidly deteriorating conditions in the Congo can the minister tell us whether there are any Canadian citizens in this danger area and, if so, how many there are? Can he tell us also whether arrangements are being made to remove them to places of safety?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Last week I was asked a question along these lines. I indicated that we were making an assessment of the number of Canadians there and that we had asked Britain and the United States to assist our mission in making sure that precautions were taken for the security and welfare of Canadian subjects. I cannot give the house the precise number at this moment, but I will.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him whether salary increases have been announced for group B, and whether he can give any information regarding them. I should like to ask him if it is correct that the increase has ranged from $90 per month to $240 per month for those receiving salaries from $2,400 to $9,100. Is it correct also that grade 1 clerks, stenographers and typists have received an increase of only $90 per year, that they have had no increase in 1961, and that there will be no review until 1965, which would mean an average increase of $15 per month for six years? Can the minister tell us if this information is correct?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Perhaps I should answer this question. There was a press release at twelve o'clock noon today announcing salary increases for group B civil servants.
The hon. member asked, among others things, whether it is correct that a great many things are true. As to part, at least, of his statement, it is not correct. These are increases in rates of pay. The increases range in certain classes and grades from $90 up to $700.
While the increase in the rates of pay as announced is 3.4 per cent, the increase in the actual pay for this group since the last pay revision two years ago has already amounted to 6.4 per cent. If the hon. member considers those figures together he will find that the increase in the earnings of the employees involved here will now amount to 10 per cent over the two year period, rather than the figure which he gave.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was asking about a
particular category, not the percentage increase for the entire group. I was asking the minister whether it is correct that for grade 1 typists, stenographers and clerks the in-

crease amounts to only $90 a year; that they have had no increase in 1961, and there will be no further review until 1965. This means that over this entire period the average increase will be only $15 a month for these three categories.


George James McIlraith: I do not agree with the hon. member's way of stating the position. It is not correct to state it as he does. In any event I can tell him that the increase in grade 1 rates just announced is $90 per year. That part of his statement is correct. The other inferences are not correct.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the hon. gentleman, as the minister responsible, satisfied that a $90 a year increase for this category is an adequate amount in view of the services these people are rendering?


George James McIlraith: Yes. The treasury board gave a great deal of detailed attention to the study of this problem. As the hon. member knows, increases or adjustments in pay are arrived at after a study of comparable pay outside the service without taking into account fringe benefits, and if the increase in any particular class or grade is found to be smaller than in another it is because that grade receives more than comparable classes outside. This is without considering the fringe benefits. As is known, the fringe benefits in the public service cost about 25 per cent, and the best estimate of the cost of fringe benefits in comparable employment outside the service runs at about 13 per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When was the last increase given to this group? I understand they had no increase in 1961, no increase until now, and that there will be no review until 1965. This will be a six year period with only one increase.


George James McIlraith: The cyclical reviews take place every two years. I believe certain classes in group B did not receive an increase when the last review took place in 1962.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the premier of Quebec that there is a strong possibility that an agreement on the repatriation of the British North America Act may be reached next month at the premiers' conference, can the right hon. gentleman tell us whether he has
Inquiries of the Ministry been in communication with the other premiers or whether plans are being made for a general discussion on the matter, which is so important to this nation?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, I have been in communication with the premiers of all the provinces on this matter within the last week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is any amending formula being placed before the premiers for consideration, and would it be possible for this to be made available?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not in a position to make it available now. I think the general understanding is that we begin where we left off at the last conference, at which agreement was very nearly reached. If there is anything I can report on the details of an amending formula before the Charlottetown conference I shall be glad to make a statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are we to take it for granted that the government is starting on the basis of suggesting an amending formula, under which amendment will only be possible by the consent of all the provinces and of the parliament of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, but we would start where we left off when agreement was nearly reached and a formula was agreed on by practically all the provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: I take it the Prime Minister is referring to the conferences which were convened during the period when the Conservative party was in office. I would ask him this. Has there been any change in the formula advanced by the federal government at that time, or any suggested change by any of the provinces, which causes the right hon. gentleman to express the hope that possibly, now, agreement can be achieved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can only say that my hope, as expressed in the house the other day and as confirmed by Mr. Lesage's reported statement yesterday, is based largely on certain informal conversations which took place at Jasper at the recent provincial premiers' conference.
The right hon. gentleman is quite correct when he says I am referring to the conference of 1961 as a starting point.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
1 [DOT].?*". '
7056	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) told us today that he will drive a spike in the Great Slave lake railway line when the latter crosses the 60th parallel north on August 29. Can the Minister of Transport tell us when the house will have the pleasure of hearing him say that he will drive the first spike of the Matane railway in the province of Quebec?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I think I had better take that question as notice.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Has he any comments to make about the compulsory retirement of Commodore Fraser-Harris at the age of 47?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on the matter. I simply wish to say once again that the compulsory retirement of senior officers is part of our integration process.
It was understood that the integration program would entail retirements, not only among lesser ranks but also among senior officers. This is part of the normal integration process.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Can he tell us who will assume those duties from now on?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the aim of that integration and the reason for laying off those officers is that there are no positions for those who are being retired.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the public


demand for direct air service between Nova Scotia and Bermuda, can the minister indicate whether it will be possible for Air Canada to initiate such service for the forthcoming winter season?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pressing as this problem is, nevertheless this would be a good question for the order paper.


Gerald Augustine Regan: This is a question of urgency, Mr. Speaker, because it not only concerns passenger service but also freight service between Halifax and Bermuda.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote).


Gerald Augustine Regan: I would like to raise the matter at 10.30, Mr. Speaker.



MEDICINE HAT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the runways are now completed, and in view of the pressing need for air line service into and out of Medicine Hat, I wonder whether the minister is prepared to make representations to Air Canada so this service can be established.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to convey the hon. gentleman's suggestion to T.C.A.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
In view of the announcement made by the minister that 300,000 employers will be able to deposit in their local banks their employees' monthly income tax deductions, will the government allow the small and medium employers doing business through caisses populates or credit unions to deposit such income tax deductions in those credit and savings unions and will arrangements be made with the federations of caisses populaires and credit unions to that effect?


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to me that, requiring a detailed answer as it does, this is *a good question for the order paper.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Postmaster General. It is the same question that I addressed to the President of the Privy Council a few days ago when the Postmaster General was absent. Is it proposed to have a conference on housing, as to the use of the recent amendments to the National Housing Act in Halifax? If it is, in view of the urgent need for low rental housing for naval personnel in Halifax, will the minister see that representatives of the Royal Canadian Navy are invited to any such conference?


An hon. Member:: If there are any of them left.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member and other hon. members of the house, that the first of a series of meetings to discuss the amendments to the National Housing Act that were passed recently has been arranged. It will be held in Halifax on September 21 and 22. I will be there with senior officials of Central Mortgage and Housing; the provincial government will be represented, with their advisers; the city of Halifax and I hope other cities concerned will be represented. Certainly the point the hon. member has mentioned, namely the desirability of looking into the housing needs of naval service people, will be kept in mind and an invitation will be extended to an appropriate person or persons to attend.


Mr. Reid Scoil (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether this is the beginning of a general program of housing conferences right across Canada? If the decision has been made to hold a series of regional conferences, is there anything the minister can report to the house in this regard?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As I intimated, Mr. Speaker, this is the first of a series of such meetings. It is hoped that meetings will be held in other provinces, and perhaps in more than one place in several provinces. This is the
Inquiries of the Ministry first of the series; another meeting is contemplated in Newfoundland in late September, and I am meeting with the Ontario provincial minister, Mr. Randall, next week and will discuss with him the advisability of arranging for a meeting in Ontario at an early, convenient date.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, would the minister assure the house that representatives of the city of Dartmouth will also be invited to attend this conference, because this city is as much involved as the city of Halifax?


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Further to the last answer given by the minister, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask him whether the holding of one of these conferences in any particular area is contingent upon a request from the provincial authorities, or whether they are being arranged on the minister's own initiative.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention, if the Halifax meeting is the success that we hope it will be and if the Ontario meeting is equally successful, to approach the proper authorities or officials in the other provinces, and municipalities concerned, and hold a series of these meetings in capital or other cities in most, if not all, of the provinces.


Reid Scott: One further supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the report released this week by the world health organization of the United Nations, in which it is said, "After the question of keeping world peace, metropolitan planning is probably the most serious single problem faced by man in the second half of the twentieth century", can the minister say whether he has given the consideration he stated he would give to the suggestion that we have a royal commission on urbanization in Canada? If such consideration has been given, is there any decision he can give to the house?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The matter is still under consideration, Mr. Speaker. In fact, when I was in the United Kingdom I had discussions with the minister of housing and local government along these lines. If a decision is reached to establish either a royal commission or a committee of this house to study housing, it will be announced in due course.


Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesler-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister this question. Would he not agree that the 113 surplus housing units at Beaverbank might be well utilized in taking up the housing shortage for naval personnel at Halifax?

Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister confirm reports appearing recently in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald that quantities of what is referred to as the "Pearson pennant" have been imported into Canada from Japan?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I cannot confirm this, Mr. Speaker. I have no knowledge of the matter at all.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the event that the present resolution on the flag is altered, will disposal be made of any surplus stocks of the Pearson pennant through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman is fully aware that the government has purchased no flags of this kind at all. These have been purchased by enthusiasts who like the flag.


Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister inquire into the quantity of three maple leaves flags being imported from Japan into this country? In view of the quantity being imported from Japan, does he think this is a good thing for industry and employment in this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should use import controls to restrict in any way the activities of private citizens who are expressing their views and otherwise acting in what I consider a completely proper way.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on a point of order. Rule 178 of Beau-chesne in part states that any member may ask informative questions of cabinet ministers. In this regard I asked the minister whether he would inquire as to the quantities of the three maple leaves flags that were being imported from Japan.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very happy to do so if the hon. gentleman will put his question on the order paper.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. I think this question is quite urgent because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no point of order there. The minister has given a reply, and that is all that is required.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinihe-Ba-goi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell us if the internal economy committee of the 1967 Canadian World Exhibition Corporation is now considering the question of giving a more Canadian character to the symbol already adopted by that organization?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the symbol adopted by that organization has proved to be very satisfactory. As the hon. gentleman knows, it received the highest accolade that it possibly could receive. In the circumstances it is being used extensively and is very successful indeed.


Paul Raymond Martineau: What about parliament?


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the minister has ever compared the symbol with one that came to my hand the other day, which was used by the nazi women's farm army.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would not expect me to answer such a contemptible question.


John George Diefenbaker: I recommend that the hon. gentleman look it up. He is going to get an awful jolt.



EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION BY COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he tell us how many countries, members of the commonwealth, other than the United Kingdom, have expressed their intention to take part in. the 1967 world fair?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there was a question on the order paper about this which was answered the other day. I suggest that the hon. member should refer to it; I am sorry, I do not keep that information in my mind.


Georges-J. Valade: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the government wishes to adopt a second flag, namely the union jack, as a symbol of our membership in the commonwealth, can the minister assure the Canadian government of the participation of the member countries of the commonwealth, other than the United Kingdom, at the 1967 world fair, so that this membership will be expressed in a concrete rather than a theoretical manner? Can he assure the house of the contribution of member countries of the commonwealth, other than the United Kingdom, at the world fair?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister is able to answer quickly I suggest that we get rid of the question; if not, I suggest it be put on the order paper.


Georges-J. Valade: Then I want to debate this question on the next occasion, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask whether within the last few days he has received representations from the federation of manfacturers of milk products, and from the dairy industry of Quebec, pointing out the rather serious condition of the dairy industry and suggesting reconsideration by the government of its cheese policy, to restore the 30 cents per hundredweight subsidy on milk or refund the premium of 3.6 cents lost by cheese factories on grade 2 cheese; and what is going to be the attitude of the government regarding this question, which is of such importance to the dairy industry?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, I did meet a delegation so far as this matter is concerned, and we are
Inquiries of the Ministry considering it. We are looking at all the various problems which were raised at the meeting. So far as the dairy industry is concerned, the Prime Minister and myself met the president and secretary of the national dairy council this morning, and they assured us that the dairy industry is in the best position it has been in for 15 years.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what the report says.


Mr. Clemeni Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. If the situation of the dairy industry is better than it has been for the past 15 years, can the minister tell us then why the Quebec and Ontario federation of manufacturers of milk products has asked him to take immediate steps concerning the dairy policy he announced last April 29?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made was just repeating what the president and secretary had to say. I indicated to the right hon. gentleman that we are looking into the processors' problems. I think the president and secretary of the national dairy council were referring to the producers.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister accept an invitation from me to come into my riding and make the statement he has just made in the house to the farmers in my riding?


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I would be very pleased to go into the hon. member's riding.


William Heward Grafftey: And to make the statement the minister just made in the house regarding the state of the dairy industry, which is just not in accordance with the facts.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement he has just made, that the dairy industry is in the best condition it has been for years, has the minister any intention of removing the butter subsidy?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, certainly we are not satisfied with it, and we are going to do everything we can to make it better.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question. Is this

Inquiries of the Ministry state of perfection and overwhelming prosperity in this branch of agriculture due to the fact that the minister took away $11.5 million from that industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. Seeing how much the tax reduction in the United States has been beneficial to the American economy, is the minister considering a similar step for Canada in the near future?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I think we should wait until the next budget, Mr. Speaker.



SUGGESTED DAILY MEETING OP PROCEDURE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice as house leader.
Since parliamentary reform is more urgent than ever, would the house leader consider, as a suggestion, that the committee on procedure and organization sit every day and hear witnesses, for the purpose of improving our parliamentary system, since we have to face a useless filibuster?


Mr. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the suggestion.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the continuing rise in the cost of living index in Canada I wonder whether the minister has received a copy of the report from O.E.C.D. which comes out against price control by government as a means of ensuring that prices and profits are kept in line, but which further suggests [Mr. Rieard.)
that governments cannot stand by indifferently with respect to the behaviour of prices I wonder whether the minister has received that report and, if so, does he intend to bring forth a policy such as that brought forth by Britain and France to achieve some price stability?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps my hon. friend has reference to the fact that the cost of living and prices generally have risen in European countries to a far greater extent than they have in Canada. As he probably knows, the increase in the cost of living in Canada and the United States has been less than in any other countries in the world.


Howard Russell MacEwan: A supplementary question. Has the minister received a copy of the new report by O.E.C.D. in this regard?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Does he intend to study this report quite closely?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[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. Has the statement of strong support for the Hall commission's health charter for Canadians, issued a day or two ago by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, been drawn to the minister's attention? If so, will it be considered by the minister and by the government in connection with the decision as to when to bring in legislation on this matter?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it has not been drawn to my attention, so that I thank my hon. friend for mentioning it. May I assure him that I will look at it and, as always, everything which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has to say will be listened to with great and sympathetic attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister looks at the document will she take note of the fact that the letterhead to which it is attached has on it a strong, solid, bold, single maple leaf?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Could he make a report to the house as to the result of the summit conference held this afternoon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not like this expression "summit conference"; it somehow puts us apart from the other members of the House of Commons. We did have a meeting this morning, but as we were not able to conclude our deliberations by lunch time we are meeting again tomorrow morning.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement today by the Minister of Industry that a new large nuclear thermal generating plant will be built in Ontario, and inasmuch as this probably substantiates the recent statement by Mr. Gilchrist, president of Eldorado, that perhaps the experts had not been accurate and optimistic enough in their forecasts for the demand for uranium, will the minister take the necessary steps to delay or halt the flooding by Metal Mines Limited, Bancroft, whose mines were closed down at the end of June this year? I understand that this flooding and repumping process is very expensive and cannot help but have some effect on the price of uranium.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will be glad to have this matter looked into, Mr. Speaker.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister indicate to the house what progress has been made in the investigation relating to the expansion of aid to the Caribbean area?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is aware, of course, that under the
Inquiries of the Ministry expanded external aid program, additional funds are being made available to the commonwealth Caribbean countries. Bilateral talks are now under way with those countries on specific projects.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will this be enlarged to include the Virgin islands?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister suggests that I remind the hon. gentleman that the commonwealth is free from the Virgins.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to divorce myself from the recent observation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is quite right. I was referring, of course, to the Virgin islands.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice which relates to a very distinguished citizen in another part of the commonwealth much more distant to that which has just been under discussion. In view of the visit of the New Zealand ombudsman, Sir Guy Powles, to speak to the bar association in Montreal in a few days, and in view of the fact on the eve of his departure from New Zealand he announced that he would be visiting the Minister of Justice here in Ottawa, could the minister inform us whether steps are being taken to make it possible for Sir Guy Powles to meet with the committee on privileges and elections in relation to the bill that is now before the committee in respect of an ombudsman in Canada?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an excellent idea, and I will take it up with whoever is concerned.



HAL BANKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I should like to ask him whether he has consulted his department and can give a report to parliament

Inquiries of the Ministry relating to the whereabouts of the elusive Mr. Banks.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the R.C.M.P. is doing everything possible to obtain the required information in this respect, but I am not in a position as yet to report more precisely to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the minister now in a position to advise whether United States immigration authorities have been asked whether Mr. Banks went into the United States and, if so, at what port and when?


Guy Favreau: I have no information as yet on this subject.


John George Diefenbaker: Have you asked?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, if his question was limited to whether or not I have asked I must say that I did ask my officers yesterday to ascertain whether we had asked the United States authorities, and I have just found a note, which was placed in my file before I entered the house, to the effect that the F.B.I. have been asked for information.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Maurice Lamonfagne (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert on Tuesday, I wish to say that I have re-examined our agreement with New Brunswick under the confederation memorial program, and it does not give to the federal government any control over the selection of subcontractors.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry whether he can give any information to this house about the possible purchase of Dosco by interests in Quebec, possibly acting on behalf of the Quebec government.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think this would

be a transaction entirely beyond the ambit of the federal government. I know no more about this than I have read in the newspapers, like the hon. member.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of Labour concerning the interest in and the dependence of the coal industry on government subsidies. Could the Minister of Labour look into this matter so as to alleviate any concern there may be in Cape Breton at this time?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stuart A. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance say whether arrangements have now been completed with the province of British Columbia for administering the student loans act in that province?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting on Monday of this week with the officials of all the provinces, and we hope to have all the formalities worked out by the end of next week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance how many of the provinces other than Quebec which will be operating on its own, have already designated agencies to look after applications under the student loans act?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I hope to be able to make an announcement about this next week. I am not certain which provinces have finalized this particular matter.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister's department investigate the activities of the salvage boat Maitland Clipper which is removing antique wrecks of historical value from the waters off the shores of the Bruce peninsula?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to look into this urgent matter.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. On August 12 the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke asked the minister whether he was in a position to announce the government's intentions regarding participation in the announced program of the British Columbia goverment to construct a highway through the Yellowhead route. At that time the minister said he was not in a position to answer. In view of the fact that a week has now elapsed since the question was asked, can the minister answer the question today?


Hon. J. P. Deschaielets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been reached on this matter as yet.


William Skoreyko: In view of the fact that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources gave some assurance to officials concerned with this highway, while in Edmonton last week, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary to the minister would ask the minister to report tomorrow in respect of this matter?



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, August 19, 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.
Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, it was just one week ago today that the hon. member for Regina City moved his subamendment listing four possible alternatives that might appear on a plebiscite if one were held on the flag. In the first six days
Canadian Flag
after the debate started there was one speaker from the Liberals for every Conservative speaker, and each of the other parties put forward three speakers. However, in the last five days the type of debate has changed somewhat, in that the Conservatives have been putting up most of the speakers while the Liberal party has contented itself with two and the other parties with one each.
I suggest that one of the big changes that has come about because of the subamendment is a recognition by those on the government side of the house, in the press gallery and across the country that the debate on the flag has been dignified by very powerful speeches. One reason these speeches have had quite an impact is that people are now beginning to recognize that they are sincere expressions springing from the minds and hearts of the people who are speaking. These are not delaying speeches. Those members who have spoken are not only speaking for their constituencies but are speaking from the depths of their beings. This is why an impact is beginning to be felt not only in this house and in the press gallery but all across the country, and the realization is spreading that we are debating a most important subject in the history of Canada.
On June 30 I took part in the debate on the original amendment and at that time, thinking ahead to what future amendments might be moved, I used these words as found on page 4887 of Hansard:
I am not going to delve into the intricate problems of the wording of the plebiscite.
I used those words because, as hon. members who may wish to read my speech at that time will see, I was aware that one of the great arguments for a plebiscite was to give the people of the country the feeling that regardless of the variety of their opinions, they would be able to indicate their feelings to the government through a plebiscite. The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City lists four choices on which the people of the country can focus their minds so the government of the day may have a realistic indication of where the weight of public opinion lies with regard to each of these choices.
When discussing the subamendment yesterday the hon. member for Oxford made a suggestion that aroused considerable interest among those of us who were listening. After

Canadian Flag
listing the four alternatives in the subamendment he suggested that once the government had an idea of how the people felt about these alternatives, the government would then be able to see more clearly what they should do. He suggested a small committee of all parties in the house, and this suggestion immediately attracted interest and questions from every party in the house.
I should like to take the suggestion of the hon. member for Oxford and say to the government that rightly or wrongly they have got themselves into a mess on the subject of the flag. If hon. members will read the speech from the throne they will see there is not a single word in it about the intention of the government to bring forward a resolution on the flag, let alone three. It is obvious that some time after the writing of the speech from the throne somebody came up with a brilliant public relations idea. They said to themselves, we are in trouble on several matters before the house, we cannot get agreement with the provinces on several of our proposals, so let us create a great smokescreen by bringing up the issue of the flag and having a long debate on it which will give us time to resolve our differences with the provinces and get our material ready for the house, and maybe make the people forget the difficulties we were in during the first few weeks of this session.
Whoever proposed that idea must accept the responsibility for having led the party he supports into probably one of the most desperate traps into which this country has ever seen a government fall. They are in a desperate situation because of the trap into which they have fallen, in that at a time in Canada's history when everybody should be working toward unity the government unwittingly has introduced a subject that is divisive.
It is the responsibility not only of the government but of all responsible members of the opposition to try to suggest some way for the government to get out of the mess and the trap in which they now find themselves. We on our part have tried to suggest that one way out is by some form of plebiscite. We have been explicit to the degree that we have outlined four potential choices that should be included in the plebiscite. There may be others.
The hon. member for Oxford has gone one step further, and I think his suggestion should be considered by the government. Whether they like it or not, whether the country likes it or not, we in Canada are in

a situation today that has explosive potentialities and no one wants to exploit that situation. The government are faced with three or four major decisions. A plebiscite is one way in which they can turn over the decision to the people. Ordinarily members of parliament do not favour the idea of a plebiscite as a good way to decide issues, but sometimes an exception has to be made in the case of moral or emotional issues.
When I spoke on June 30 I gave the precedent of the conscription debate. If I had been a member of the house in 1942 when that debate took place I think on the basis of the material before me and my knowledge of the facts I would probably have spoken against the idea of holding a plebiscite. But looking back with a historical perspective we realize now that, regardless of the logic of holding or not holding a plebiscite in that explosive situation, the plebiscite did serve to lessen the cleavage in our country.
When the time came for conscription to be enforced in Canada, the Canadians of English speaking background and of French speaking background who had been opposed to conscription accepted the will of the majority and served their country with distinction. They could do that because in spite of their opposition to conscription, the majority had spoken and they themselves had been given an opportunity to express their will.
We have put forward to the government, therefore, one way out of the difficulty, and that is the plebiscite. We have been explicit in connection with the plebiscite by outlining four choices that could be made. Now the hon. member for Oxford has outlined one more way out of the difficulty. I should like to expand that idea and add one major new ingredient. We know the government have to lose face in this situation, but that is their responsibility for getting into the mess. We have some responsibility on this side for helping them to lose as little face as possible, because this is a subject that concerns the very deep emotions of the people of this country.
I am suggesting to the government that they should consider the idea of a committee of all parties of this house. It need not be a large one. It should be small enough to do the job in several months yet big enough to encompass the opinions of all parties. In a democracy you can come to virtually unanimous agreement. I am positive, knowing the members of the house on all sides, that we can come up with something on which we can all agree. I know there has to be a

willingness to see the other person's point of view. I know there can be no compromise on principles, but within those principles you can make adjustments. Nothing has been said during this whole debate across Canada which means we have to throw up our hands and say this is a complete impasse. If we allow people to talk together long enough, to meet with each other, then with reasonable good will we will be able, as we have in the past, to arrive at a solution to the impasse. We have no less belief and we have no less good faith toward our country today than we have had in the past.
I suggest that the idea put forward by the hon. member for Oxford might be a course the government could consider even before a plebiscite. I think I can speak for many members in this house when I say that we would be willing to accept this. However, the minimum demand for accepting this idea and closing up this house while the committee went to work would be that the government thoroughly understand four simple principles. The first principle is that, regardless of the pride of anybody, this flag must be something upon which the majority of Canadian people could unite. It must not be any sort of party symbol, because that will divide us for generations. It must be something on which we in this house and the people of this country can find virtual unanimity.
Furthermore, as part of this suggestion that the government join with us in setting up an all-party committee, there should be agreement by the parties going into this committee that they would support the conclusions of the committee if those conclusions are virtually unanimous. We cannot expect complete unanimity in a committee. If there is that willingness to agree beforehand, if there is that acceptance of the fact that the political realities of Canada demand we recognize these four principles which I am listing, then I think we can get out of this situation. Yes, there will be some loss of face here and there. If we do succeed in getting an almost unanimous opinion from this committee I am positive the majority of people will follow along. We do not want to divide Canada. We want a united Canada.


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


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder if I may conclude my four points; then at the end of my speech I will welcome any questions.
The second principle I have to emphasize has already been stated by the Leader of
Canadian Flag
the Opposition. If we are to remain true to our background and our cultures, then any flag that brings unity must afford some recognition of our past history. This country was originally a colony of France and also several colonies under the British king. We have seen a slow evolution in growth from colony to nationhood. This is the warp and woof of our history. Without conflict we were able to come to the point where the descendants of these two founding races could live together. We have come to this point where we can live together because we have always honoured a declaration which was made in the eighteenth century by Governor Carleton that the language and religion of the French speaking members of this new country would always be honoured and protected. This is the foundation upon which the country of Canada was built and has continued to build. We must always, as good Canadians, remember the pledge that was made to the French Canadians at the time of the seven years war, that we would always honour their religion and their language.
We have been able to develop economically in this country to the point where we rank with the top five or six nations of the world. With the tremendous resources that we have, with the business and scientific know-how we are developing, our future is unlimited in a material sense. This material future must not be impeded by getting into the type of struggle or confrontation that nobody wants. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this is the second principle; that any flag that is going to create unity in Canada must contain symbols of the past. To me it is not a concession to those of English speaking background that their symbols be on the flag; to me it is not a concession that the symbols of our French speaking fellow Canadians be on the flag. So far as I am concerned this committee would have my blessing and full support if it gave equal rights to both founding races on that flag.
No superior race or cultural group; no inferior cultural group; is that too much to ask? Is it too much to ask that the flag of our country should tell the story of how people from two different language groups came, for various reasons, to this continent, have learned to live together and intend to live together?
And we intend to live together by making certain that nothing of the culture of one group shall be destroyed. We are proud, and we should be proud, of the cultural inheritance we have received. So the second principle is that there shall be recognition of the

Canadian Flag
cultural beginnings of our country. It can be done and these, I think, are reasons why it should be done.
When I was speaking on June 30 and thinking along these lines I used these words:
I think if the people looked at this situation with all the political realities as they are-and the whole country both east and west wants this country more united-here is one way that I suggest would help. Whether there is going to be, if this plebiscite idea is accepted, a committee of intellectuals, a committee of this house, or even a committee representing the provincial governments, regardless of what type of group you get together to plan the bare terms of this plebiscite I think a plebiscite could be worked out whereby the great majority of these people who now feel they are a minority would feel they had a chance to express themselves.
I felt then, and I feel today, great faith in the democratic process. If you get people together, regardless of their political party or the colour of their skin, and they fail to find their way out of an impasse, then there is a lack of genuine democratic feeling somewhere. Now we have a history of democracy in this country which goes back a long time. We can solve the present difficulty as we have solved worse difficulties in the past. I say this to hon. members who distinguish themselves by speaking very rarely in the house. I am trying to put forward a proposal which will get the government off a hook of its own making. I suggest that if we were willing to agree to set up a committee, and if we could agree to accept the decision of that committee, then providing these principles were honoured-


An hon. Member:: 


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Is there any great difficulty about honouring the principle that there should be recognition of the traditions of both the founding races?
The third principle which I think I should put forward has received relatively little attention during the course of this debate. I say that if we are to use a committee in place of the suggested plebiscite, such a committee would have to accept as a term of reference the proposition that there must be something of religious significance on the flag. We have nothing against a maple leaf as a Canadian symbol. What shocked many of us about this proposal of a flag with three maple leaves or a single maple leaf was the loss of a symbol which we have held most dear in western civilization for 800 or 900 years. When our ancestors gathered on the deserts of the eastern Mediterranean, trying to secure control for the Christian world over the home of Christianity, they had to find symbols around which

to rally, so they picked different crosses. I am not ashamed of that, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the pennants of the knights and the nobles, this was the first use of flags on a major scale. These symbols, whether chosen by men from Britain or France or Germany, were the first in western Europe, and ever since our flags have borne something of a religious character to remind us of the history of western civilization.
I think this principle has to be followed by the Canadian people. When this matter comes to be considered in every home and in every church in Canada I do not think the people will be as happy with a flag which lacks any religious significance as they would be with one containing something to remind them that we are a part, if a small part, of western civilization with its Christian heritage.
I say this without any sense of pride or superiority for any religion. I say it simply because a nation without some realization that there is a power greater than material power lacks a necessary ingredient of greatness, both in this world today and in the future. Unless we submit to the realization that mankind is not perfect; unless we submit ourselves in all humility to the truth that there is only one power which is perfect, namely Godhead itself, a vital element is missing from our civilization. If we were ever to think that we in our mortal lives are capable of solving every problem, we would be running into grave danger. Unless we have sufficient humility of spirit to accept that on our symbols there should be a sign of superior power we are likewise sacrificing an important part of ourselves. These symbols may have weakened over the centuries, but there is still recognition in them of a power greater than we possess on this earth. So the third proposal is that any flag which would meet the terms of reference must be a flag of religious significance to some degree.
The fourth principle will be hard to explain, but I must try. Previous speakers have mentioned that ours is an evolutionary flag; it is not a revolutionary flag. I wish to draw attention to the significance of that suggestion before proceeding to consider another principle which I think we must accept. If we are to achieve the unity which we desire and which is necessary-this 80 per cent or 90 per cent unity in Canada-we must recognize that whether we like it or not this is a country of minorities. One minority, the French speaking Canadians, have always felt compelled to fight for their culture whenever

they felt it was under attack. They have developed such a consciousness of this culture that they sometimes overlook the fact that the English-or les anglais, as they call us-* are also a minority. French speaking Canadians, to use round figures, represent roughly one third of the population of this country. Canadians with English speaking backgrounds also represent roughly one third of the population. Now there are some six million new Canadians, or descendants of new Canadians, in this country, and they come from countries where other languages are spoken.
So we are all minorities. The political reality, therefore, is that we must always be careful when dealing with things which affect the spirit and the culture of our people. This means that we have to move slowly. We have got along so far because we have always protected the rights of French speaking Canadians as to their religion and language. We can get on in future if each minority group respects the basic needs of the others. One of the things which the Anglo-Saxon minority holds dear is the presence of its national symbol on the flag. This is simply a political reality.
The hon. member for Ontario spoke in this debate the other day in answer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He used an expression then which I hope will not pass unnoticed. He said he felt sorry as he saw his French speaking fellow Canadians in a confrontation with his English speaking fellow Canadians. As I read that statement, to his mind there is a confrontation between English speaking and French speaking Canadians, but that is not the way the French Canadian sees this question, Mr. Speaker, if I read the French newspapers correctly. The elite of the French Canadian editorial writers are pointing out-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you let your French members speak on this question?


An hon. Member:: Why don't you?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -the fight that is going on among English speaking Canadians. They see the English speaking people of Canada divided. They say that this matter of a flag is not one of life and death to the French Canadian; he has many more serious problems to worry about. To realize this, one has only to consider the economic living standards of the people of rural Quebec and those of the workmen in the cities and towns of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: And the unemployment in Quebec.
Canadian Flag


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These are the French Canadian's worries. Certainly he would like a flag, if he is asked, I suppose, along the line that has been proposed by the government; but it is not a serious matter to him, according to the writers in the French Canadian newspapers. But read the English newspapers, Mr. Speaker. I refer, for example, to the newspapers of Alberta which supported the Liberal party in the last election. They say this proposed new flag is a massive concession to Quebec; that Quebec people insist on this new flag. But they do not insist on it, if you can believe the French Canadian newspaper writers; and the French Canadian today is wondering what all this fuss is about. It is said that the Quebec people feel the government should get out of this mess and go on to other things. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest in the face of the political realities that exist today in Canada we have an opportunity to lay down a pattern for future behaviour in matters of this sort that will stand us in good stead for many years to come.
I have mentioned this fourth principle, for example. Anything we do in Canada affecting the culture of our minorities must be of an evolutionary nature. One of the great dangers that I see in the present technique of this government is that they have put before this house a simple resolution designed to change the flag of Canada. They have decided something that affects the deep moral and emotional feeling of a great segment of our nation, one of our great cultural groups; and by way of a simple resolution they have decided this flag is going to be our national flag, regardless of the fact that probably 35 per cent of the people of Canada very sincerely want something else that is part of their whole culture and tradition.
Perhaps we have a precedent in this regard. Let us go back to the words of a former prime minister, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. If my memory serves me correctly he said that by a simple resolution we could change the constitution of this country with regard to language.


An hon. Member:: That was in 1950.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My colleague says that was in 1950. If we are going down this slippery slope of letting simple resolutions decide matters which so deeply affect minorities, we will always be in a state of alert in this country. I sometimes wonder, when we know that discussions are to be held among the federal and provincial governments on the constitution,

Canadian Flag
whether one of these evolutionary steps could not be taken with regard to something that is missing from the British North America Act. I wonder whether the discussion should not only concern changing our constitution but should not also deal with a matter such as the flag, which is now so deeply a part of most of us. Should not the question of the flag be included in any change in our constitution and incorporated therein? It could be changed, but slowly and in an evolutionary way, without forcing a minority to its knees.
I have spoken at some length on these four principles, Mr. Speaker. I am going to repeat them. I would like to say to my hon. friends opposite that I put these principles forward with the realization that they commit me, and I think many of my colleagues here, to the acceptance in advance of a decision by a committee. If we are willing to accept this, the only limitations are the four principles I have mentioned; and surely we are all good enough Canadians that we can accept those four principles. Here they are. The first is unity, in order to get a virtually unanimous opinion on this question. In spite of all the cynicism I know this is possible. These four principles are broad enough for anybody who loves his country to accept. Unity means that you get virtually unanimous support in this committee. As I have said, I think it can be done, not in 60 years but in four or five months.
The second principle is that the symbols of our past should be on that flag, and that the symbols of the two founding races should be given equal place. There is no question of one group appeasing another and people saying that one group represents one third of our people and the other two thirds. This matter concerns our history, and you do not measure quantitatively how many there are in each group. It can be done, Mr. Speaker, if we accept equal recognition, with no superior group and no inferior group. If this is done I believe we can achieve virtual unanimity all across the country as well as in a committee.
The third principle, which I trust every member of this house supports, is that on the flag there has to be something of religious significance of this nation, because without that there is nothing ahead of us; we are just-without mentioning any names-in the position in which many of the new nations of the world find themselves, with no background, no common series of principles on which they can unite. As a result they have great difficulty building a nation.

The fourth principle is very important for the future. We must accept the fact that with regard to matters on which minorities feel very deeply there must be evolutionary change, as opposed to revolutionary change. If you bring in a simple resolution such as we have before us to change a symbol that is so dear to the hearts of many of us-a flag- and force this down our throats, you will leave in Canada a near irreconcilable minority for at least a generation; and I know whereof I speak. The period of irreconcilability may be much longer.
We are suggesting that these four principles be used as terms of reference, to give the government a chance to close off this debate, to get something moving forward so that we may have a distinctive national flag, to get back to those matters that were contained in the speech from the throne, and bring unity to this country. I think these principles deserve consideration, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, who will be dissatisfied with this type of proposal? Who will suffer from these four principles? First of all, I know the extremists will, and there are extremists on all sides. Second, those who want separation between the two founding races will be disgruntled. Third, those who believe in a republic will be dissatisfied; but there are not many republicans in Canada. Fourth, the communist party will feel dissatisfied because they want a flag which has no religious significance, and they do not want anything at all on the flag which refers to the fact that the French and English had a colonial background. We are proud of the fact that we have grown from a colony to full nationhood so peacefully and under evolutionary techniques.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that very few would feel disgruntled at this type of situation. And if I might just descend to the depths for a moment, there is another little group that will be dissatified; that is all these private enterprise friends of one or two members who are producing these new flags. They will have to call them all back in and lose a little money. However, I do not worry about them.
I suggest that if we keep these principles alive in our minds and accept the fact that the political reality today is that we are all minority groups; if we want to set an example of living together here, not only for our own satisfaction but for the whole world- we have done this in the past and we think we can do it in the future-then one of the courses open to the government is to hold a

plebiscite. But if that is unpalatable to the government, then here is another suggestion which we have made, namely that this question be referred to a committee.
I should like to thank the members of the press gallery who in the last few days have been indicating to the people of the country that those of us who are speaking in this debate believe in what we are saying. I think this is right. We know now that we are speaking for our history and our principles, and we shall continue to do so regardless of the personal cost to each one of us. We cannot and we will not retreat beyond the principles I have just enunciated. Just as our fellow French Canadians cannot and will not retreat when their culture is attacked, so do some of us who are another minority refuse to change our minds on this essentially fundamental matter. I feel that if all good Canadians fight for the rights of those who have these feelings about their culture, to protect that culture, then this country can go forward.
I hope this suggestion which I have made, one week after the hon. member for Regina City moved his subamendment listing the four choices, will be accepted. This suggestion was originally proposed by the hon. member for Oxford as a follow-up to a plebiscite. I have now proposed that this step should be considered even ahead of a plebiscite, and I put it forward as a second alternative to enable the government to get out of the mess they are in. Because there is only one other choice, a choice that we all know no one wants, and that is that we go back to the country and fight this matter out in the wildest dogfight of Canada's history. And we will split this country as a result.
The country demands of us all-not only the opposition but the government as well- some effort to clear this situation away. You cannot get out of it now without losing some face. The flag was never mentioned in the speech from the throne. Hon. members opposite are in this mess through their own fault, and they will have to make some concessions to get out of it. But I am telling them now that I am not speaking in this way just because I am a Conservative; it is because I believe that my background and the background of many millions like me gives me the right as a minority to demand, and to always demand, that on the flag of this country there be something to represent the contributions we have made to this country in the past.
Canadian Flag


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question before he sits down?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the hon. member's suggestion that his proposal could possibly have the effect of closing off this debate, I wonder whether he would comment further on his statement that if his proposed committee brought back a report we should accept it, I think he said, immediately. Does he propose that in these circumstances we would not reopen this whole debate?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Don't commit yourself on that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I made it pretty clear in my remarks. One of the advantages of this suggestion is that we are trying to take this whole matter of the choice of a national symbol out of the realm of mass confrontation in this house and into the realm of a committee composed of members from all parties, which would be given the chance to see whether it could not come up with a suggestion which would meet these four principles. I do think there has to be some sort of understanding that there be a willingness on all sides, after the usual formal debate, to seriously consider the matter as something we should all stand behind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask-


Some hon. Members:: Make your own speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time of the hon.
member for Qu'Appelle has expired by several minutes, but due to the importance of the suggestion I thought the house would not object if he continued. However, if he is going to make many more replies we need the consent of the house. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask just one more question, because I think the suggestion was put forward seriously and we have the right to understand its implications. Since the effect would be to cut off debate now, can the hon. member say whether he and his party would agree, when a report did come back, that there be either no debate or limited debate so that a decision could be made without reopening the matter all over again?


Mr. Moreau:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I think he has put forward an interesting proposal. Would he prevail on

Canadian Flag
the members of his party to allow the subamendment and the amendment which are now before us to come to a vote so he could put forward his suggestion in the form of an amendment to the main resolution?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I made my proposal to the government in the hope that the leader of the government, who has some responsibility as the real house leader, would come before the meeting of the leaders of all parties with some tangible suggestion. I have put forward the proposal together with the terms of reference, but I think it is up to the Prime Minister to take some type of leadership. I have been putting forward an idea which I took from the hon. member for Oxford in the hope that it would receive serious consideration.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, for the past three weeks we have been having a single debate, that on the resolution to give Canada a distinctive national flag. During those three weeks, we have heard very few members from the province of Quebec, and I think that many factors may be instrumental in the lack of participation of the Quebec members in the said debate, up to now.
We were quite aware, we from Quebec in particular, of the scope of the problem and of the discussions which the government proposal would stir up, and we did not want to add in any way to the discussion.
But I believe, following everything which was said since the beginning of the debate, that the time has come for us to break the silence we have kept so far, in this corner of the house in particular, in order to express another point of view and to bring, if possible, a little relaxation in this august assembly.
I must admit, although I recognize that all hon. members have the right to speak freely in the house, that one must be really thickskinned not to jump out of one's seat upon hearing some of the arguments put forward since this debate started.
If I were sarcastic and mean, I could rejoice because we have witnessed since the beginning of this debate what looks like a fight to the finish between some English speaking elements. We have been used in the past to seeing French Canadians fight among themselves, discuss things fiercely, sometimes disagree deeply, but this time we are witnessing this disagreement within the country's English element.

But, Mr. Speaker, this does not make me happy, any more than I rejoice or will ever rejoice to see disunity among people of the same ethnic group.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we could be happy with such a situation.
I will surely not try to refute all that has been said but there is one particular point on which I should like to set the record straight. On several occasions and no later than last night, some hon. members stated that the flag resolution is a surrender to the province of Quebec and that the Liberal party is selling the red ensign for the 75 Quebec votes.
Nothing could be farther from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Like their fellow Canadians, the people of Quebec have long been waiting for a distinctive flag; consequently, they are not the only ones who wish to have such a flag. Indeed, if the new distinctive flag is not accepted throughout Canada by the majority of the people, Quebec will not know what to do with it. It will just become another half kept promise probably carried out to get more votes.
Mr. Speaker, we would not know what to do with a flag which would not meet with the approval of the majority of Canadians, and if it is to be flown only in the province of Quebec, we do not want it. Our province already has its own flag and if we advocate the adoption of a distinctive flag for Canada, it is because we are convinced that the time has come to show some national pride and maturity.
If there is any one here who thinks that the Liberal members from Quebec were elected because of such a vague promise, let me tell him that he is sorely mistaken.
On the other hand, if some Liberal members from Quebec think they will be reelected just because a new flag has been adopted, let me tell them that the people of our province have a most disagreeable surprise in store for them.
The Liberals are not entitled to any gratitude on the part of the Quebec people if they give them that so-called flag. That gratitude has already been expressed through the heavy vote Quebec has given the Liberals in the past following the many promises made on each occasion.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals think the problems of Quebec, as well as those of Canada as a whole, are going to be solved simply by means of the flag issue, they are bound to find out that those problems are much too complex to be settled merely by adopting the flag.

It was claimed for a long time that this matter of a flag was of the utmost importance to the Quebec people. But, to back the point I am making, let me refer to certain achievements of the Conservatives, when they were in office. The Conservatives have indeed given simultaneous translation to the House of Commons, requested so many times and even promised in the past. Has it helped the election of Conservatives in Quebec? No, Mr. Speaker, because today Quebec is aware that its problems will not be settled by symbols only. Its problems, like those of the whole country, go much deeper than that.
Mr. Speaker, should Quebec favour Liberal candidates at the next general election, it will surely not be because of the popularity of the Liberal party, but because the opposition parties will have failed to express their views and offer a much better solution to our present problems. If the Liberals win the next election, I think that it will be due to the weakness of the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong supporter of any proposal to give national symbols to our country.
Today, the circumstances are such that I am one of those who are entrusted in this house with the extremely difficult task of voting on those symbols, at a time in our history when tensions between the various ethnic groups which constitute the Canadian people are such as to jeopardize the very basis of our institutions.
It is generally admitted that confederation survived thanks to compromises accepted by Quebec and for which we, the people of Quebec, unfortunately had to pay day in and day out.
Judging from the various viewpoints expressed throughout Canada as well as in this house, one would tend to wonder if the time was well chosen to start the discussion on this legislation which more than any other one is likely to bring a discussion based only on emotions and unfortunately to give some demagogues free rein to show their true colours, if not their skill.
Personally, I feel that there is nothing to be gained by further delaying the choice of a flag and that, on the contrary, this shock treatment-since it is certainly a shock treatment-will perhaps compel all Canadians to pull themselves together and put more emphasis on the many reasons to look for a better understanding on all those matters that divide us.
Certainly I would have preferred that the resolutions which have been introduced would not mention any colonial symbols. But as I
20220-447J
Canadian Flag
said, I feel that we will have to be patient and probably accept a compromise in the hope that within a few years from now the percentage of Canadians by birth will increase and that those relics will disappear by the will of the majority of the Canadian people themselves.
As for us, Canadians of French origin, who settled here more than 350 years ago, we have been 100 per cent Canadians for a long time. But we still feel interested and touched by everything concerning France. That is why, even if it may seem difficult, we must try to understand the present emotions of the seven million Canadians of British origin who are being asked today to discard another symbol of our past as a British colony, to take one more step forward on the road towards complete independence in fact and in right. I recognize that such progress is proceeding at a snail's pace, Mr. Speaker, but I would rather have it slow and well ordered than quick and the cause of chaos such as that experienced by the majority of former colonies, whether French, British or others, which, in recent years, gained their independence at the cost of bloodshed and great economic and social. upheaval.
The evolution of Canada is the result of long years of struggle which must be continued. To a certain degree, the French Canadians have been the catalyst in that progress towards complete emancipation of our country. We are being accused today, as we were in the past and as, unfortunately, we will still be for a certain time to come, of trying to divide the country, although it is completely the opposite.
We want a strong Canada, strong with the strength of all its parts, Quebec being one of them.
We are crying out against foreign control of our economy, not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada.
As our ethnic group had to fight for the last 200 years for its survival as a nation with a French culture on this American continent, we realize more than any other group, more than our Anglo-Canadian fellow citizens, the danger which the ever-growing influence of the American way of life represents, and how much it may jeopardize the future life of Canada as a separate entity. That is why, Mr. Speaker, Canada needs distinctive symbols.
I would, at this point, if I may, quote from an article written some time ago in the

Canadian Flag
Montreal Gazette. I apologize to hon. members for my English pronunciation, which is unfortunately far from perfect though I wish it were. I quote:

I am a "landed immigrant" from Britain who has lived in Canada for 12 years without bothering to take out Canadian citizenship (after all, I thought, this country flies a variation of the British emblem so obviously its citizenship must be merely a variation of British citizenship which I already had in full measure).
The day the new and distinctively Canadian flag is unfurled for the first time will be the same day I file my application papers. When I next visit England, it will be a proud moment when I can pass Canada house in London, see the Canadian flag rippling in the breeze and think: That's my flag.
I have waited 12 long years to become a Canadian with a flag, a national anthem and at least a modicum of national pride to call my own. Thanks Mr. Pearson, it looks as if I will shortly have my chance. The back of my (former English) hand to those who would deny me this chance.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the expression of view of a man who was born in England, and I feel he is not the only one to express this opinion. I hope that those who were born in Canada of English culture will be as much Canadian as this man intends to be, and support for Canada as much as possible the symbols we need so that we can be recognized as a really independent country.

Mr. Speaker, when reviewing the reasons which the Fathers of Confederation put forward to unite the various British colonies in America at the time, it is interesting to note that the first and foremost aim was to set up Canada as a distinctive country, which would be sufficiently strong to resist American assimilation. It is too bad that the matter of a truly Canadian flag was not settled then, as all those dissensions and discussions, and all those problems which we have to face today would not have come up at all. They probably expected that their successors would not delay in filling this gap, but they had not taken partisan politics into account, i.e. a state of mind which having been maintained and further developed, is now obstructing any decision on the flag.
Today, we are in a dilemma. The country seems to be hopelessly divided. But is this split really hopeless? Personally, I do not think so; I would hate to think so. No problem is hopeless when men of good will objectively decide to find a solution.

Mr. Speaker and hon. members, if ever a matter, or circumstances called for a compromise, it is those which are now under consideration. Quebec is in no way committed to the design suggested by the Prime Minister. I am certain that the French Canadian people who are conscious of their responsibilities with regard to the preservation of harmony in this country, will, once again, as they did in the past, show sound common sense in this matter.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker-and I do not intend to take more than the necessary time- I would like to appeal to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to his colleagues who support him in the house, to agree to reconsider their position, because, otherwise, they will plunge the country into a state of chaos as we have never seen before, and the result of this action could have unconceivable repercussions on the future.
Suggestions were made-one needs only to read in the Montreal Gazette the question "Do we want our flag?". And you have the former Ontario premier, Mr. Leslie Frost, who, I believe, is a good Conservative and wants to keep this unity we all want in this country. This man who is now well on in years and quite experienced in public administration, thinks that it is time for him to take a stand. He urges those who were and are still his supporters to reconsider their position and to accept a compromise.
I can appreciate the situation in which the Conservatives find themselves. They say: "This is the Liberal flag, the Pearson flag, and the rest of Canada will support him for 50 years". The Liberals, of course, have been paving the way by reminding people that conscription was passed by the Conservatives. One may expect the flag to be the cornerstone of the next election campaign, and that is why the Conservatives object to it as practical politics. On the other hand, if the Liberals expect to win the support of the province of Quebec with this flag, and if it is their only achievement, they have a very poor opinion of the Quebeckers and of their judgment, and it is high time they reconsider their position.
As far as I am concerned, I put my trust in the Quebec people, and in their judgment, and if the Liberal party comes to Quebec at the next federal election with only a Canadian flag as its achievement, let me tell you again, my dear friends, that it will be very much surprised because the Quebec people

are much more realistic and practical than they were in the past. Simultaneous translation, set up by the Leader of the Opposition, did not bring him the deep gratitude of the province of Quebec. And it is not by granting to Quebec unimportant things, which they wanted and were entitled to, that he received the support of that province. The real problem is far more complex than that.
We shall have this distinctive national flag, for the great majority of Canadian people want it. Considering that this flag may be the fruit of the longest period of gestation ever, and that, for many, great moral suffering might have accompanied its birth, I am convinced that, afterwards, all Canadians, whoever they be, will respect and cherish it. Besides, it will have been the result of many struggles and probably many concessions, valuable concessions indeed, no doubt important ones. Even if, for the good of the country, whatever party we may belong to, we have to make concessions-I am sure there will be several in the province of Quebec, and I hope as many in the other parts of Canada-I believe we shall have to make such concessions and that we should, especially we, Canadians, come to an understanding and vote unanimously in favour of what will be not the Liberal flag or the Pearson flag, but the flag of Canada.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the hon. member allow me a question?
Does the hon. member want to imply that due to the fact that he has decided to accept the three maple leaf flag, this flag should be accepted without allowing us to suggest other designs to the government?


Marcel Lessard: Certainly not, since I spoke of compromise. This flag design is far from meeting my personal taste, which by the way is not the taste of the majority of the Quebec people. And this is quite normal. To say that this design is beautiful, far from it. But, if I were to let my personal taste prevent possibly the adoption of the flag, I think that it would be a great disservice to the Canadian people.


Mr. G. L. Chatierion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for many days for the chance to exercise my right and carry out my duty by speaking on this flag question, one of the most important issues, I believe, that has ever arisen in this country. Although I have very strong, personal feelings toward the Canadian red ensign, and probably there is no riding in Canada that feels more
Canadian Flag
strongly toward the red ensign than mine, my position is not very popular. The stand I have taken has been one of moderation, and I shall try to make my remarks here today in the same key.
I was very disappointed yesterday to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) call this debate a filibuster, particularly when the Prime Minister himself invited all members to express their opinions on this question. Many of our members have not yet had this chance. As I have said, I have been waiting for many days for my turn to speak on this question.
I am speaking specifically to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More). I shall not read the subamendment, but the gist of it is that amongst the questions to be placed on the plebiscite are the following: Would you prefer the Canadian red ensign, or the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritage of both founding races? Do you like the three maple leaf flag or the one maple leaf flag? I have five arguments I will put forward in support of this subamendment or rather in consideration of the subamendment.
My first argument, Mr. Speaker, is that this government has no mandate from the people of Canada to introduce the maple leaf flag or any such flag that they may have in mind. I have with me a full page advertisement which appeared in the Victoria Colonist dated March 31, 1963. It is headed, "Policies of the Liberal Party, General Election, 1963." In looking over this full page advertisement I see many things that the Liberals promised. Glancing through it, I see that they are going to reform taxes, which they have done by increasing them; municipal loans for schools and parks are to be provided; provide mortgages for existing homes-I will bet that got them many thousands of votes-improve rural housing; set up an economic council; assist in retraining courses for industry; provide ten thousand $1,000 scholarships; improve public financing for universities; pensions to make possible retirement on half pay at age 65 with a maximum pension of $296 per couple; $75 old age assistance for single women and widows; collective bargaining for civil servants; restore unemployment insurance fund; create a fisheries credit agency, and so on. I could take another half hour listing the things that they have promised which they have not yet done, many of which they have already decided to abandon. No matter how carefully you examine this full page advertisement which was used in many

Canadian Flag
newspapers across British Columbia, there is no reference whatever to a flag. How can the government, particularly when they were elected as a minority, presume that they have a mandate from the people to present this three maple leaf flag?
During the last election campaign I recall that the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos), now sitting in support of the government, who opposed me in 1961 and
1962,	was on the same platform with me in
1963.	I think he will confirm that in our area this flag question was not raised at all. If it had been, I am quite sure the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) would have said he was for the red ensign. This is my first reason for supporting the subamendment, that this government has no mandate from the people of Canada.
My next argument in favour of this subamendment is that if there is to be a vote on any portion of the flag question it will not be a free vote of the members of this house. At one time the Prime Minister promised a free vote. On May 12, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates), he said, as reported at page 3164 of Hansard:
When the time comes to submit the decision of the government in this matter to the House of Commons I would hope every member of the house would vote as his conscience dictates, and that there would be no question of confidence or nonconfidence in a party sense.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, somebody prevailed upon the Prime Minister to change his position. I think by then he started to hear from the people across Canada. He has stated that this is a question of confidence in the government. I maintain therefore that any vote that may be taken here will not be a free vote in which every member on that side will vote according to his conscience or in accordance with the way the people of his riding feel. To prove this contention I will cite an individual case. Unfortunately, it happens to concern a very good friend of mine, the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos). I will submit evidence to show how members on the Liberal side have changed their views, or rather how they have been brought into line-I do not say they have changed their views. I will first of all read a letter which a constituent wrote to the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.). It is a letter from a Mrs. E. E. Fox, and this is the relevant part of it:
Regarding that there are many different and decided opinions regarding this matter which is of such vital interest to all Canadians, I would urge that the red ensign be adopted as Canada's national flag; and, furthermore, that a proclamation of that flag be made without delay.

This was the letter addressed to Mr. David Groos, M.P. Now here is the reply dated February 10 from the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) to Mrs. Fox:
I thank you for your letter concerning the national flag of Canada, and for letting me know your views on this subject.
Please let me assure you that I agree absolutely with everything in your letter and I intend to do everything I possibly can to see that our present flag keeps flying.
Maybe it was in a weak moment he wrote that one. That letter was dated February 20. Eleven days later the hon. member still had not changed his mind, because he wrote another letter, the relevant part of which reads-and I will quote it:
I intend to do all within my power to retain the present Canadian flag.
Then on February 7 the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) wrote another letter to one of his constituents, as follows:
Thank you for your recent letter concerning Canada's national flag.
Just let me say I am in complete agreement with you and the many others of my constituents who have written to me in this regard, and I intend to do my utmost to see that Canada's present flag keeps flying.
Again, I apologize for having to refer to a particular hon. member but I am using this case as an example of how the whip cracks and members are brought into line on the other side. On May 21 the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) wrote a letter on the flag issue to the Victoria Daily Times and to the Victoria Colonist in which he said:
The Prime Minister will be taking action on this matter within the next few days. I am free to vote as I wish and I will, naturally, be guided by the views of the residents in my constituency.
The letter went on:
No flag will be acceptable to me unless it finds a large degree of favour right across the country-
With regard to the second part of the letter which I have read, I presume the hon. member has seen the result of the poll which shows that a majority of the people in nine out of ten of the provinces prefer the Canadian red ensign.
To revert to the first quotation I gave from the hon. member's letter, the part in which he said he would naturally be guided by the views of the residents of his constituency, 1 should like to ask: What are the feelings on this flag question of the constituents in the Victoria (B.C.) riding?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should perhaps bring it to the attention of the hon. member that the Chair has some doubt about

the propriety of quoting letters exchanged between another member and a third person. This appears to be contrary to the spirit of debate, where an hon. member has to express his own opinions rather than the opinions of someone else, or of other members. I must say I have no authority before me on the point, but this is a matter which the hon. member might keep in mind in case he is considering reading other letters of the same type.


Mr. Nowlan:: On the point of order, I do not think there is any authority for the proposition you have just put forward, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of the rules is the reverse and my impression at the moment is that the hon. member is perfectly within his rights in taking the attitude he has, and that he has proceeded in accordance with the rules which govern this house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid I have to reiterate I have no authority before me at the moment. I have simply expressed the understanding of the Chair of the rules which govern our debates generally-that it is not in the spirit of debate for hon. members to quote from private correspondence in which they themselves are not engaged.


George Louis Chatterton: I would accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I might just say that the person whose letter I read gave me authority to use the letter. She, of course, owns the letter once she receives it. However I have no more letters to quote. I wish to proceed with my speech. I was referring to the letter which the hon. member wrote to the Victoria Daily Times which was made public by being published in that newspaper.
What do the people of the riding of Victoria (B.C.) feel about this question. The Victoria Daily Times had a poll, and I will read from its issue of May 20, 1964, concerning this poll.
Not in recent memory has a public opinion poll conducted by the Times drawn such an intense reaction as the flag ballot.
Times readers are concerned enough it seems, that they wish to make it a sincere test ol opinion.
What was the result of this poll taken by the Victoria Daily Times? On May 29, 1964 the poll was closed. By that time 3,860 ballots had been cast. Of these, 2,847 were in favour of the red ensign and 1,013 were in favour of the maple leaf flag, that is, almost 3 to 1 in favour of the ensign.
I may say I have warned the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) that I intend to attack his position and I ask him to reply to the charges I have made. I see with satisfaction that he is making notes and I feel sure he would
Canadian Flag
like to explain to his constituents the change in his position. I am using this case just as an example to show that if there is to be a vote on any part of this flag question it will not be a free vote.
It was interesting to note that yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) said it would be a free vote. I think he was flying a balloon. But even if the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) were to tell us tomorrow that there would be a free vote it would be too late, because the whip has cracked and the members have been placed in position; they have made their stand clear and they cannot change, now. To say, now, that there will be a free vote, would be a hollow ruse.
The next argument I wish to advance in favour of the subamendment concerns the actions of this government in creating disunity and division within the country. My colleagues from Quebec know that I have always been sympathetic to their case and that I understand their problems. I myself come from a bi-racial country where my own people were in much the same position as the French speaking people consider themselves to be in Canada. I wish to make it clear that the statements I propose to read do not represent my own opinions. What I am attempting to do is to show how people in various parts of the country are reacting to the actions of this government. I am almost scared, sometimes, to see the reaction of the people to the government's proposal. I propose to quote excerpts from letters I have received, just to show how people feel, and how the government had divided the country. Here is a letter which says:
Some member of the opposition should rise to remark that Mr. Pearson is taking a course of action which will result in his place in history being that of the man who divided Canada.
Here is part of another letter:
If we are adopting this flag merely to placate a vociferous minority, we are doing a grave injustice to the rest of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would earnestly ask the French speaking members from Quebec to listen to this to see how people in other parts of Canada feel toward them. Much of this feeling amongst these people has been created by the action of this government. I can tell the house that in 1962 I carried out a poll of my riding on this French question, and even I was surprised to learn how sympathetically the people of my riding considered the French problem. But this is not the case today.

Canadian Flag
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto)- who, incidentally, made a very thoughtful and thought provoking speech-said yesterday that it is only a minority of Quebeckers who are creating this trouble. He went on to say that people in the other parts of Canada do not know this. He is quite right. They read the press, and do not know this. The C.B.C. in particular is terrible in this respect. Instead of trying to place the whole question in perspective, they emphasize the actions of this extremist minority in Quebec, and the people in the rest of the country, particularly those in British Columbia, think this is the way the whole of Quebec feels. Because of the present action of this government with regard to the flag, these people are caused to say, "See, we told you so". I want to impress on my French colleagues that this is doing them harm. This letter says:
It was kind of you to show an interest in my small effort to stop the vicious plan to force on us a national flag only wanted by the lousy peasoupers.
I am very regretful, Mr. Speaker, that I have to quote this, but I am trying to convey to the government how these people feel. It is terrible that the action of this government is causing this type of bitterness. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I would hate to quote some of the letters I have received, but I have quoted these extracts in order to convince the government that their action is causing these people to feel more bitter against French Canadians. I have dozens of letters along these lines, but I think those I have quoted will suffice to make my point that the action the government has taken and the manner in which they are dealing with this question is creating disunity and division. It is causing harm to the whole country, particularly to the people of Quebec, because other people say this is done to appease Quebec.
I want to emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that I have used these quotations to try and impress upon the government that this is how people feel. I regret it. I have a whole file of letters here from which I could quote; they are all along those lines. The fourth argument-


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


George Louis Chatterton: No. When I am through I will answer any questions.


Malcolm MacInnis: You wouldn't recognize an answer if you got one.


George Louis Chatterton: I have a fourth argument I want to advance as to why the action of the

government and the manner in which they are dealing with this question should be abandoned in favour of the subamendment. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) has so eloquently described it, the English speaking people of British descent- most of them, at any rate-feel very, very strongly about the question of the flag. I can best demonstrate this by quoting some of the expressions used in their letters. First I should like to read an advertisement which was placed in the Victoria Daily Times of June 8. It is an advertisement for the sale of a property and it says:
Our clients along with Lord and Lady Cholmon-deley have decided that since the government of Canada has seen fit to remove the red ensign that they simply cannot live under the three maple leaves and therefore have bestowed on us the exclusive privilege of selling their lovely secluded country estate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Louis Chatterton: I will now quote from an editorial which appeared in The Province of December 16 last. It says:
But many Canadians, including thousands of veterans who fought for their country and to whom the flag has a special meaning, want to retain Canada's red ensign.
It was good enough to fight for and for some of our comrades to give their lives for, the veterans say. Leave the flag alone.
Here is another letter from one of my constituents-a former Liberal, incidentally, who has changed his political affiliations since the flag issue arose-and I quote in part:
-a desire to cater, for purely political reasons, to Quebec with its large degree of political influences.. .Does Pearson, after all the good work he has done, want to be known as the "great disrupter"?
The writer of that letter referred to Mr. Mackenzie King going down in history as the "great appeaser" and then refers to the Prime Minister being known as the "great disrupter". Here is a letter from a chap for whom I have a very high regard; he is very active in the Legion:
I enclose copy of my letter to the Prime Minister regarding the flag question, the implications of which, in my view, are far deeper and more sinister than many people realize...
I think this vicious thing should be fought against with every fibre of our being.
I have a great many other letters. Here is one from a young Canadian 16 years old:
I always felt that Canada had a flag. It is the red ensign that is recognized around the world as Canada's flag. Do we have a justifiable reason for changing this flag? There must be a reason, one might say.

And so on. The fourth argument I have used is that people feel very strongly on this question of the Canadian red ensign. I am not one of those that say it must be the Canadian red ensign or nothing. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I have been severely criticized in my riding by some of my people for not taking that stand. But this is not the attitude we on this side of the chamber take. I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle put forward a very reasonable proposal with great sincerity when he said that we on this side are anxious somehow to arrive at a consensus on the question of a flag that will be accepted by members on all sides of the house; not just by the people of Quebec but the people from the other parts of Canada.
My last argument in support of the subamendment is that if this flag went through on the present basis, a great many Canadians would not accept it. Again, Mr. Speaker, I have many letters from individuals and groups indicating this stand. How can you introduce a flag in a manner whereby a large number of people will not accept it? Surely the government must realize this is the way people feel in some parts of Canada, and surely this must be cause for reconsideration by the government of their position. I know they are in a difficult position. In my view, this plebiscite with the four questions to be asked is an alternative. In view of the whole situation at the moment, I believe it is an alternative that might get us out of the mess in which this government has put the country. It is one alternative. I personally tend to favour the proposal made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I am not going so far as he went. He laid down four principles which could be contained in the terms of reference of the committee. I do not go so far as to say that those necessarily should be the terms of reference; I think they might be ones the committee could be asked to consider. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the flag which the committee might recommend need not necessarily conform in all respects to the four principles laid down by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. However, I think his proposal indicates that we are prepared to get together and see if we can arrive at a consensus on this question.
Two of my French colleagues on this side of the house have approached me in regard to the flag. I know they have become concerned about the position in which we find ourselves. They came to me with two flags and asked how I would react to them, knowing that I come from red ensign country. One of these flags did not have the union jack on 20220-448
Canadian Flag
it, although it bore some resemblance to it. I told both these gentlemen that if there was any kind of reasonable unanimity for such a flag in, say, an all-party committee, or for either one of those two flags, I would go for it; I would sell it in my own riding. I would do this, provided there was reasonable unanimity in the committee that considered these designs. It will be hard for me to do this, but for the sake of unity I would accept such a decision of the committee and sell it to my people, although I would be strongly criticized by a certain group. That indicates that we are prepared to find some solution. We have considered the matter, and I am sure the government must now have realized that we on this side are serious about it. Every hon. member who has spoken-and this applies to both sides-has spoken with sincerity and conviction. But this is a serious question and the government must realize that they must change their position. If they do not accept the suggestion of holding a plebiscite they should consider the idea of a committee such as that suggested by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton). I am sure that even some of those on this side who have extreme feelings about the question will make an honest effort to find common ground so that this present divisive action of the government can be stopped and the people of Canada can get together and find a symbol acceptable to the majority of them. This would at least not create the strong feelings which have been aroused by the present action of this government.


Mr, D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I was not unaware that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatter-ton) was going to speak on this subject. He wrote me a note yesterday and told me so. He said there was nothing personal in it but he was going to make some comments which would require some answers. I must say I am a little bit surprised at the turn his remarks took in the early part of his speech but I will answer his questions.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I am one of the less partisan politicians in this house, and I try to be so in my remarks both in this chamber and in committee. First of all, let me say that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is quite right when he says I have been a supporter of and believer in the red ensign, and I make no apologies for that. For many years I was under the impression that this was our flag, and I have so answered when I have been queried on the subject.

Motions for Papers
As I say, I acknowledge and take full responsibility for what I said in the letters which he so helpfully produced on the floor of this house. However, I must point out that when this matter of a national flag for Canada became a great national issue I very soon became aware, as did a great many other members of this house, of the need for looking far beyond my own personal feelings, and I became aware of the need for taking a long term, detached view of this whole matter. When I did this and I had reached my own conclusion I lost no time in placing my thoughts and my views before the public in every way possible.
The people who live in Victoria are certainly in no doubt whatever as to what are my views on this point, and I have been exceedingly heartened by their reaction to my statements. I am not pretending that in Victoria public reaction is not divided on this issue, but by and large the Victorians, as I would expect, are taking a tolerant, restrained and understanding approach to this whole matter. I feel that I am competent to speak for them in this regard because I too, apart from being their member, get a fair amount of correspondence from my constituents.
I believe that many people who live in Victoria and who live across this land, now that they understand what are the proposals and have thought about the matter for a while, have changed their minds on this issue. They, like myself, have no fixed, immovable views on this matter, and certainly the volume and the content of my mail on this subject of the flag shows this to be true. In this regard I would thank the people of Victoria very much for corresponding with me on this matter and for giving me their views.
The hon. member made some reference to the fact that we are servants of the public in trying to point out what the people in our ridings are thinking. I should like to comment on that, but I notice it is now five o'clock, so may I call it five o'clock and continue with my speech at eight o'clock.


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



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Orlikow: "That an order of the house do issue for

a copy of all government statements and directives to government departments during the past year regarding security procedures and investigations".
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could this be allowed to stand?


Mr. MacNaughl:: With the unanimous consent of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I can understand standing motions which have not been presented, as has been done on a number of occasions; but once a motion has been dealt with and is in the hands of the house, what is the rule or the custom? I understand that the rules committee determined that we would spend a limited amount of time on this type of thing. I see that there are 40 minutes remaining on this particular motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member referring to No. 123?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is why the Chair asked for the unanimous consent of the house. That is the only basis on which we could stand it, and I understand there was unanimous agreement that it be stood.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sorry; I thought it was at the request of the government.


John Watson MacNaught: No; I said "By unanimous consent".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-37, respecting The Guarantee Company of North America-Mr. Watson (Chateauguay-Hunt-ingdon-Laprairie)-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Name in French.
Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie (Mr. Watson) could give us a few explanations on this bill?


Mr. Watson (Chaleauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Chairman, the sole purpose of this bill is to add a French version to the

name of The Guarantee Company of North America. The French version of the name is La Garantie, Compagnie d'Assurance de l'Amerique du Nord. That is the only reason for the bill.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Chairman, in 1964, this company wants to obtain a French name. Why is that need felt today? Is it because they are aware of the awakening in Quebec since our group has been sitting in the House of Commons, as a separate group from the province of Quebec striving to have recognized the need for the French language as well as the English language? That may be one of the factors which has prompted this company to introduce this bill. That may also be the reason why this company wishes to have a French Canadian name.
There may be other factors which have some influence in that respect, namely that this North American insurance company is thinking about the possibility of developing in the province of Quebec-since they realize the existence of that nationalist trend in the province and all across Canada-in order to have rewarding operations. Maybe they think that if they print a French name on their letterhead, on statements of accounts and insurance policy forms, they will have more customers, because all that would indicate they are a Canadian company.
When there is money at stake, companies go to work. I am not against that change in name. We must even be happy to see that an English company wishes to have a French name.
We are the ones, the Creditistes, who said that we would block all bills coming from the Senate. I think we must adhere to that principle, because we say that the Senate has no right to block bills like the one concerning the bank of British Columbia, as requested by Premier Bennett, that is a bank which would enable the government of British Columbia to be master in its own house.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member who will admit, I am sure, that the reference he is making to another bill has absolutely no relevancy with the matter now before us.


Lucien Plourde: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was saying that only to explain our objections to Bill No. S-37 now before us.
That is the reason why we object to the third reading of this bill. We are prepared to let it pass second reading today, in the 20220-448J
Private Bills
hope that the Senate will soon decide to send us the bill we are expecting and which we want to discuss, namely the bill concerning the bank of British Columbia.
Now, if this company, established many years ago, feels that it needs a French name, we are delighted and we will permit this bill to be read a second time, but you may be sure that we shall oppose the motion for third reading. We shall oppose it, even though we are not against the bill itself, but we shall do this as a protest against the decision taken by the Senate respecting another bill.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, prior to the passing of the first clause of this bill, I should like to say that I think the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie should give us more explanations. I understand that The Guarantee Company of North America wishes, by means of this bill, to add a French name to the one it already has.
I am wondering if it only wants to make a change so as to have a French name or if it also wants to have a management that would satisfy the needs of French Canadians?


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Chairman, I can answer this question. The directors as well as the shareholders of this company are all Canadians. With regard to the company's employees, I believe the French Canadians are in the majority, accounting for 51 or 52 per cent of the personnel.
This company has always been a truly Canadian company. I have been informed that the greatest part of its business is done within the province of Quebec.
I agree with the hon. member for Chapleau and with the members of his party, that we should all be happy at this company's decision to add a French version to its name.
In reply to the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde), I am pleased to say that the house has read the bill a second time and that it has been approved by the committee on miscellaneous private bills. I hope that the hon. member for Quebec West will realize that this bill was approved by the committee on miscellaneous private bills well before he made his statement on the bills coming from the Senate.
That is why I think that our friends could let this bill pass without going back on the principles which they set forth several days ago.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Gérard Laprise: I thank the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie

Private Bills
(Mr. Watson) for his explanations and 1 congratulate him for the effort he is making to speak French. I hope the company which is adding a French name to the one it has in English will make the same kind of effort, but I cannot help wondering a little why it had to wait until 1964 before considering that a French name might improve its image.
As the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde) pointed out, it could be due to the fact that, for the past couple of years there has been a French Canadian upsurge in the province of Quebec, with people getting together to ask for more French, not only in the federal administration, but within Canadian companies that are doing business with us and offering us their services.
So, Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie and the hon. member for Quebec West have said and I congratulate the company for having thought of giving itself a French name. I hope it will show the same attitude in all its initiatives concerning French Canadians and that it will give them the opportunity of doing business with it in the language of their choice.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence E. Watson: the third reading of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Lucien Plourde: No, Mr. Speaker. On the same principle, we refuse to have the bill read today for the third time and we ask that it be referred to the committee for study.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Lucien Plourde: Nay.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CONGREGATION OF THE MARIST SISTERS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-38, to incorporate Congregation of the Marist Sisters-Mr. Dube-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Dube:: Mr. Chairman, as you can see from the title, the purpose of Bill No. S-38 which I have the honour to sponsor is to incorporate the Congregation of the Marist Sisters.
The congregation was founded in France on December 8, 1824. Its present field of action covers 11 countries, including Canada and more particularly the county of Madawaska in New Brunswick.
That religious congregation has always done some fine work. The Marist Sisters look after the education of the young, the ailing, the orphans and the aged and they do social and mission work. In other words, they spend their whole lives serving humanity. As outlined in section 4, the purpose of the bill is to enable the congregation to continue its work which includes the provision of educational facilities, the establishment of orphanages, convents and hospitals and to provide the congregation with the proper legal powers in that connection.
I think the hon. members will be pleased to grant its request which has already been endorsed by the miscellaneous private bills committee.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to approve the passage of this bill, namely the incorporation of the Congregation of the Marist Sisters.
As the sponsor of the bill said, that congregation was founded in France in 1824 and now it has members in 11 countries, which shows that it is in demand because of all the services it renders to society.
According to the provisions of section 4, one realizes that the community does its magnificent work at the request of various dioceses. According to the bill, it would have its headquarters in Hull. It is a central place and I think that the government will be able to give financial assistance to this community in order to establish an orphanage. There are too many youths and old people in Canada who lack the necessities of life and live in substandard housing. It would be a good thing

if a building for the aged were built on behalf of those nuns who devote all their lives to the service of others.
Under section 6, they will be authorized to purchase and own property. It is quite normal for a congregation to own the land and building where it is performing its good work. If the corporation is not authorized to own its land and its building, how can it be expected to develop.
Therefore, I congratulate that corporation for having submitted this request and we have no objection to third reading of this bill, since our group does not have five but only four members. We do not want to delay indefinitely the passing of this bill, even if it comes from the Senate, because it has priority over certain bills presented last week.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to add a few words to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Quebec West, but I do not intend to kill this bill, far from it. I am in favour of the bill to incorporate the Congregation of the Marist Sisters. I am in favour of it, because such congregations are needed in the country and the province of Quebec and I also know that other similar congregations are needed throughout the world.
The sponsor of the bill told us that this congregation was founded in France in 1824. Since then, other congregations, for women or men, have been established with the purpose of assisting the sick and dispensing their services in the fields of education and others.
Even if there has been an evolution in the fields of education and hospital care, we still have a great need, in our country, for those people who dedicate themselves, day and night, to the welfare of their brothers and sisters, in short their fellow citizens.
Mr. Chairman, we do not want to kill the bill but rather have it passed, and we want to congratulate all those who, by any means whatsoever, have contributed to the setting up of that congregation.
The bill was examined by the Senate first and then referred to us. However, there is one thing we cannot accept: that the Senate of Canada, whose members are not elected but appointed, should take it upon itself to make a selection among the measures submitted to it, that is passing some and rejecting others. Mr. Speaker, we cannot tolerate such an attitude and that is why we ask all those who submitted private bills to the Senate and are waiting for them to be passed to exert pressure on the Senate so that it will pass them as soon as possible-
Private Bills


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Once again I am sure the hon. member will understand that he cannot go on as he is doing now because his remarks must deal only with the provisions of the bill under consideration.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks on Bill No. S-38 by saying that I agree with the sponsor of the bill and that I commend the persons mentioned in section 1, who will constitute the first board of directors of this corporation, for their initiative. I wish them every success and I hope they will get the co-operation they expect from everyone.


Reid Scott: I just want to place on the record an indication of the support of our party for this worth-while organization. We are impressed with what the sponsor has. said and we are glad to lend our support.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 16-Territorial powers.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Before the last clause carries, Mr. Chairman, I may say that I notice the corporation is asking authority to pursue its objectives and exercise its rights and powers in any part of Canada. I note also that under clause 1, which we have passed, the directors are all residents of the city of Edmuns-ton in the province of New Brunswick, and that the head office is to be in Hull, Quebec. I wonder if the sponsor of this bill could tell us why the head office is to be in Hull when all the directors seem to be from Edmundston, and I presume that is where this organization intends to carry out the functions set out in this bill.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The head office is in Edmundston now. I believe the sisters intend to move the head office to Hull, Quebec, and that would be the purpose of the change.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. S-39, an act to incorporate Meota Pipe Lines Ltd.-Mr. Nugent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Acadia authorized by the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill to proceed with it?

Private Bills


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: the second reading of Bill No. S-39, to incorporate Meota Pipe Lines Ltd.


Reid Scott: Could we have a word of explanation?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As has been customary, a group of Canadian citizens, all residents of Edmonton, Alberta, are coming before parliament to ask for the incorporation of Meota Pipe Lines Ltd. The purpose of this company is to build a pipe line from southeastern Saskatchewan to southwestern Manitoba. Since the pipe line crosses a provincial boundary, the company must take out a federal charter. They propose to build 22 miles of pipe line, something in the neighbourhood of four inches in diameter, depending upon the size of the market available for natural gas. The pipe line is to be constructed from Gainsborough, Saskatchewan, to Melita, Manitoba.
I might add also that in asking for second reading, Mr. Speaker, it is a well established practice that bills of this nature are referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. The proposed president and general manager of the company, as well as other persons involved, are fully prepared to appear before that committee and give in greater detail the reasons for requesting this charter. If the company is fortunate enough to secure a charter, it will then have to appear before the national energy board as well as the conservation boards of the provincial governments involved. The rates to be charged, of course, are set by the provinces. The company will then have to secure a charter from Melita, Manitoba, in order to sell natural gas in that town.
The main object of this company is to transmit gas from Gainsborough to southwestern Manitoba in the hope that a market can be developed for this Canadian product. 1 might add that the people involved are all Canadian citizens and Canadian capital will be used to build the line and develop the market for this Canadian product for the greater convenience of southwestern Manitoba, which is not now served with natural gas.
If there are any further questions I shall do my best to answer them in the hope that we can proceed with this bill. I would say to those who feel they cannot pass bills of this nature in this house, that the bill will be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and the officials

will be called to give detailed answers to any further questions hon. members might have. The bill will then come back to the house for third reading.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I just want to say on behalf of our party that we have no objection to sending this bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for further detailed study. It is well known that this procedure is followed. At that time the officers or petitioners, if I may call them that, for this charter will appear before the committee. Hon. members will have the opportunity of interrogating them and getting all the technical details with regard to what they propose to do with the charter.
I feel I should say one more thing. It is the practice for small oil and gas companies in western Canada to find the gas and then attempt to find markets for it. This is something that goes on all over Alberta and Saskatchewan. It would be fair to say we have dozens of pipe lines leading from the smaller gas fields to towns, villages and cities all over western Canada. This has been beneficial to the people who have developed gas wells and risked their capital to find those fields and develop them. It has always been beneficial to some of the smaller towns and villages which otherwise would never have had an opportunity to enjoy the use of natural gas. In this particular case it happens that between the gas fields and the town which will be using the gas will be a provincial boundary, and as the sponsor of the bill, or the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) speaking for him, has indicated, it is necessary therefore that the company should receive a federal charter.
There is nothing unusual about setting down a four inch pipe line for 20, 30, or 50 miles so that people farming along the way may have the benefits of natural gas in their homes or in their farms and also to provide for the needs of a small town which otherwise would not have the benefits of natural gas. It is somewhat unusual that a company must come to parliament because the line crosses a provincial border, but on behalf of this party I would recommend that the bill be sent to committee for detailed study since the arrangement underlying it is a common practice all over the western provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, August 6, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Konantz for the second reading of Bill No. S-6 to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before this motion is passed I should like to say a word or two. We who come from western Canada naturally have a keen interest in the establishment of a bank which might bring a great deal of benefit to us.
I may say that the world of banking has been the subject of a great deal of interest over the years on the part of western farmers generally. The banks have had a long history of opening up their vast resources to farmers, only to foreclose their loans or call for their money at the worst possible times, to the detriment of their customers. This has been the history of banking in western Canada as far as farmers generally are concerned. In recent years, it is true, many farmers have been able to take advantage of loans guaranteed by the government and in these circumstances the banks have probably been more lenient.
As I say, the people of western Canada have taken a deep interest in the banking world. It may be of passing interest to note that banking and finance have been of particular interest to the province of Alberta, from which I come, for the past 30 years. This is probably why I picked up my ears when I heard some months ago that a bank called the Bank of Western Canada was to be established. In continuation of this interest I read the reports of the committee of the Senate with regard to this bank. I must say I was somewhat shocked to find that the only thing which was western about this bank was the name. Control, it seems, would rest in Toronto. The Senate banking and commerce committee was told that the purpose of the bank would be to help finance operations in western Canada and to aid small businessmen in western Canada. It was even suggested the company would build a couple of branch offices in Alberta and, I think, in one or two of the other western provinces.
This house is fully aware that many small businessmen are not able to do their banking in the larger cities. As one who represents a rural area outside Calgary I was particularly interested to learn whether this bank proposed to make any effort to aid the people I represent. I came to the conclusion after reading the report of the Senate committee, that the bank was simply masquerading under
Private Bills
the name of "The Bank of Western Canada"- that control, and probably its interests, would lie in Toronto and in eastern Canada. It is for this reason I hesitate to see the bill pass readily this afternoon without anything further being said about it. I certainly hope it will be referred to the banking and commerce committee of the House of Commons so that we can take another close look at the distribution of shares. I am told that since this matter came before the Senate committee on banking and commerce there has been a reshuffling of the ownership of these shares.
The company is asking this parliament for a great privilege. It is asking for a charter to operate a bank in Canada. This is a monopoly given to only a few, and while I support the principle that there should be more banks operating in Canada under federal charter I am somewhat dubious concerning this particular bank because of the attempt to masquerade under the name of "The Bank of Western Canada". If they had called it "The Bank of Toronto" I might have been less suspicious. Perhaps that name would have involved duplication. But why did they not choose another name? Perhaps they could have called it the "Bank of Eastern Canada". It would I think have been more appropriate for this group, and I would see less reason for hesitating about granting this charter. A person who tries to masquerade under a false name is always the object of some suspicion, and perhaps that is why I am suspicious of this particular company asking us to grant them a charter to operate under the Bank Act, together with other banks.
As I say, they are asking us for a valuable monopoly and we have every right to inquire closely into the ownership of this company to find out whether it will be Canadian and whether it will remain in Canadian hands. I should like to see the ownership in as many hands as possible rather than in only a few hands. From the reports of the Senate committee it appears that by and large three people will have a controlling interest in this venture. I have no objection to ownership by three people, but I wish it were 300. We would then have more people able to share in the benefits of the monopoly. This house should always concern itself greatly about the granting of monopolies. Monopolies give tremendous power to the companies benefiting by them.
I will end by saying that I wish the mover of this bill would say that it is proposed to refer it to the standing committee of the House of Commons on banking and commerce for further examination.

Private Bills


Mrs. Konantz:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Among the 100 names that have been submitted as petitioners is listed the name of W. G. Konantz. I would like the house to know that W. G. Konantz is my son; he is an independent businessman; I have no interests in his financial arrangements at all, and I have no pecuniary interest in this bank. In order to alleviate any fears of hon. members of this house, Mr. Speaker, I will not vote on this bill when a vote is taken in the house.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compion-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill No. S-6, to comment more particularly on some of the reasons why those large companies enjoy very special privileges which any other company is unable to get.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate on this bill, I would like to make a few observations on the Canadian banking system, especially on the control which financial interests can exercise on the economy of the country and also, directly, on the personal life of every Canadian citizen, depending on the good will of those gentlemen, the bank managers, who control our lives by the decisions they make.
It should be noted that those bank managers often meet and are quite in agreement when they attend board meetings of electric power, textile, paper, railways, tobacco or wheat trusts, to mention only those and, of course, they are all members of the ultrasecret Canadian bankers association. It is there that finance and the economy of trade and industry are controlled; it is there that low salaries and high prices are established.
There are eight banks in Canada and the four most powerful control 80 per cent of all Canadian business. All the branches, 5,600 of them, with ramifications throughout Canada, are the faithful and affiliated skimmers which reap everywhere, for the benefit of the central bank, the outcome of the people's labours.
The cause of every economic crisis, war and sudden change of capital is to be found there, rather than in the so-called deficiencies of international trade. If bankers are so powerful, it is because they have the exclusive power to create money as they need it, while all other citizens of the country must

work to earn a living, and deprive themselves in order to save a little. They eventually get into debt with those institutions because even sovereign governments are under their yoke.
It is almost impossible for honest citizens to go up in the world of wealth because all millionaires made their money through flagrant and immoral injustices, company and bank acts which the governments use to give the directors of those institutions exclusive privileges, unmatched power to the disadvantage of the other institutions or individuals in the country, to the disadvantage of society and governments themselves.
The taxation system itself, as set up today by the governments and the municipalities, also favours the wealthy and the powerful to the disadvantage of the poor, the little fellow and the weak. Should not the governments, bodies of society to serve society, protect the weak as well as the strong?
Therefore, I ask all the very rich people, the small and big capitalists in 1964, to assess to what extent they have been, in some way, exceptionally favoured by those three major discriminatory institutions of modem society, the Bank Act, the company legislation and the fiscal legislation.
It will appear abundantly clear to the millionaires, the wealthy and the well-off people that their wealth was derived more or less from those three major injustices; it is their responsibility, therefore, to contribute, according to their means, to the readjustment of society, in order to restore a proper balance on the social, national, personal and family plan.
And you, the poor and underprivileged Canadians, do not think that this money will be given to you for nothing. Society will just allow you to take advantage, through a social readjustment, of the share you were unfairly deprived of in the past.
It is to be noted that banks are sound and good as well as useful and necessary institutions, but one must also recognize that one of the laws on bank credit constitutes one of the three great legal injustices of modern times. We do not have to demolish everything but to correct and better those institutions. Reforms are necessary if those institutions are to be adapted to the new conditions which they have themselves created, but until a competent authority puts the house in order, it is still better to respect the existing disorder than create complete disorder by revolt and anarchy.

For instance, an application for the setting up of a provincial bank has been rejected by the Senate.
The Senate has turned down a bill respecting a provincial bank and it wants to approve a bill sponsored by a few private individuals. The Senate is ready to give a charter to individuals, to private institutions, but it denies it to a province. A province deserves as much consideration as a few individuals-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he cannot refer, as he does at the present time, to procedures of the other house.


Henry P. Latulippe: Far be it from me to make bitter criticism to appeal to the passions of the people. I merely wish to examine the facts of which the people are unaware and to explain what should be and what the people want. Studies improve one's mind, expands one's horizons and add to one's stature. To be practical, we will indicate a logical, social and legal way of carrying out such a reform in an orderly and peaceful fashion.
Consequently, I take the liberty of saying that the banks put out credit money and cheque money which are used by the people as instruments of exchange just as if they were legal tender. In other words, they are nothing but legalized bogus money. The banks have the power to increase the money supply by creating credit money.
They lend to themselves large amounts they create out of nothing and that is where they hold an advantage over those who must save to accumulate capital.
Pope Pius XI was clearsighted. Did he not say in an encyclical:
What strikes us at the present time is the tremendous and discretionary power in the hands of a small number of individuals, this power is especially formidable among those who are the absolute masters of money, controlling credit according to their discretion.
They are infusing blood in the economic system which rests in their hands so that without their consent nobody could survive. The strongest alone still stand, that is the most aggressive and unscrupulous ones.
Therefore, we stated our reform proposals on many occasions and we repeat them: take away from the banks the issuance of credit money and the sovereign authority shall resume its role concerning the issuance of money, of all the money required for trade.
The real money based on the large production of Canada, plentiful, based on man,
Private Bills
on his trading requirements and on his production capacities. We must therefore restore justice, make a distribution of ill-gotten gains and then set up an economic system to preserve justice and maintain a balance between social classes for the general welfare of mankind.
I am a member of the parliament of Canada in Ottawa. What does that mean?
In my riding of Compton-Frontenac, I am the representative of 22,000 voters, and of the 45,000 citizens who actually live in my riding.
To live, those 45,000 citizens need money every day, every month, every year.
That money that citizens of my riding need so badly is not manufactured in my riding, by any citizen of my riding nor in any other riding. In my riding the citizens produce all kinds of commodities for other citizens of the community; they make furniture, cheese, houses, churches, schools, roads, but no one manufactures money.
All across the land seven million citizens manufacture all kinds of things required by human people for their living in Canada, but no one can manufacture the money that all citizens need so badly to purchase the goods and services required for their subsistence.
The issuing of money is reserved to the Bank of Canada, as regards notes in circulation, which total approximately $2.2 billion, and since that amount cannot meet the circulation requirements and the need for exchange on the part of the people, private banks have been authorized to create some sort of credit money, script money, bookkeeping money, accounting money, money which cannot be seen with the naked eye, a permission which those private banks have used to the extent of over $17 billion, and that is eight times more money than the Bank of Canada supplies.
The result is that our eight private banks, taking advantage of this exclusive privilege to create money and all forms of capital, have seen their directors become board members of the 800 largest companies on the stock market.
That is why this kind of business may tempt newcomers, that is why we are being faced with applications for three new banks in Canada.
Must we accept or must we reject those three applications? Are we going to allow an increase in the number of companies and banks which are taking unfair advantage of the public through those money-making
7086	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion privileges, in the form of credit of all kinds, money, capital shares and bond privileges?
Personally, I do not think so. At least not as long as there is no control on the circulation of money in the interest of the people, of all people, of all citizens, of the 19,200,000 citizens of Canada, who are suffering hardship on account of the money control and the scarcity of this money so useful in everyday life.
For a long time the top sociologists of the whole world have been talking of an exclusive control of money and credit by bankers and capitalists. For many years economists have been asking for a better distribution of wealth and revenue among all the citizens of each country, according to its productive capacity.
For a long time too, people have been talking about the rights of many, but those rights remain a dead letter in the statutes, and never to be reflected in figures in our economy.
It remains to be decided, here in Canada, in this very parliament and once for all, whether we should let the whole people work and suffer for the benefit of a few profiteers who exploit everyone's labour, or whether we should control the situation and, at last, authorize the government, or the Bank of Canada, to control all issuing of money, credit, shares and bonds, representing the true assets produced and exchanged by and among the people. We have to decide that we approve profits derived from capital invested in banks and companies, but in keeping with the welfare of human beings and families. This has to be realized and corrected before we go any further, in Canada, with the founding of new banks-


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

The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the question1 to be raised at 10.30 o'clock p.m. this day is as follows: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. 

Regan); air transport-provision of direct service from Nova Scotia to Bermuda.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion 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. Groos:: Mr. Speaker, we were discussing the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton) who put some questions to me during his address. I wish he was here so he could hear my reply.
He was inferring in his remarks that in view of the various polls that he had seen printed in the newspapers, and as a result of various letters he had received from constituents in his riding, perhaps I was being guided by someone other than those in my riding, or by my own views. I should like to clarify this position at this time.
I have made my stand on the flag issue quite clear and have let everyone in my riding know my feeling. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, when this issue comes to a vote it will be a free vote.
In reference to the matter of polls, so far as I recall there were three taken in my riding. I should like to make some explanation in this regard. One poll was conducted by the Victoria Daily Times. The figures my hon. friend used, almost three to one in favour of the red ensign, are absolutely correct. In fairness however to the people who marked their ballots in that poll and to the newspaper itself, I think I should point out that this poll started on the very day the new flag was made public. The poll began on May 20, lasting until May 29 and its results were published on May 30. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, during most of that time the actual proposals of the government were not

known. It was not until May 26 they were made public in this house and May 27 that they appeared in the newspapers in Victoria. In all fairness to those who marked their ballots I must say they were not aware of the exact proposals as no mention had been made of the second part of the government resolution, namely the adoption of the union jack as the commonwealth flag. There was *only a very vague reference in the newspaper to what the new flag would look like.
The second poll was one which appeared in a newspaper published on Mondays, the Victoria Observer. On the front page of that newspaper there appeared a cutout clipping to be sent to the member of parliament, and it was addressed to me. That clipping suggested in the last line: Please use your influence to ensure the retention of the union jack in the new flag.
As a result of that clipping, Mr. Speaker, I had no more and no less than 24 sent to me in my office. That fact would indicate that this newspaper has either a low circulation or that the thought contained in the *clipping did not appeal strongly to very many people. I suggest, sir, that this is not a newspaper which has a low circulation.
Referring again to the poll conducted by the Victoria Daily Times, it might be worth noting also that this is one of three new daily newspapers, with coverage over the *entire island and part of the mainland. It *covers four complete ridings which are populated by some 293,000 people. Less than
4.000	people turned in ballots. Although I find the result of this poll informative to a degree, I do not think it is an absolute poll [DOT]on which complete reliance should be placed. I particularly say that because there has been a subsequent poll introduced in this debate which was carried out by Gruneau Research Limited. I presume this poll took place some time during the month of July. The results of this poll were published in the Victoria Daily Colonist on August 6 and indicated that this was a survey of some
2.000	people across the country. By rough and ready reckoning, Mr. Speaker, that would appear to be about 200 people per province. It indicates that in the province of British Columbia the red ensign is favoured by 32.1 per cent, that the maple leaf flag is favoured by 29.9 per cent and another flag by 15.8 per cent. There were 17.9 per cent who did not care and 4.3 per cent who did not know. I would suggest the comparison between 32 per cent in favour of the red ensign and approximately 30 per cent in favour of the maple
Canadian Flag
leaf design is not bad when one considers the new proposed flag had only been known to the public for, if I may refer to it as a sailor, a dogwatch. I think the results of this poll indicate that this flag it catching on across the country and will grow in favour once people become aware of its symbolism.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste much time in this regard but before I leave this question of who is guiding me I should like to point out one further fact, and this is something that has had some effect upon me, I must say. I find that the man who represented the Conservative party in the last election and who ran against me has placed his views in respect of the flag on record in a Victoria newspaper. He did so shortly after the government's proposal was made public. Mr. Chairman said:
Many thousands of flag designs have been suggested over the past years. If this design has been deemed best, it should be adopted.
The red ensign has been accepted as the official flag for some time now, and for most of that time all political parties have been demanding a new one that would be distinctly Canadian.
Those who insist on a plebiscite to decide the issue are showing irresponsibility. It has been a major election platform of all major Canadian political parties for some years to adopt a new Canadian flag-surely they must represent a majority of the Canadian people.
There has never been a better time to finalize the issue than on the eve of Canada's centenary. And Mr. Pearson, heading a minority government, cannot be criticized for trying to push it through wantonly.
Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say in respect of the poll question and now wish to make one or two remarks about letters that have been received. The letters I have received have not been very great in quantity and I find that to be somewhat surprising, coming as I do from Victoria where people have, as I have said before, very great affection for the union jack and for the red ensign. I would have thought that if anything would have aroused public reaction for or against, it would have been the last paragraph of my letter to the newspaper of June 10 which was referred to by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton) this afternoon because, having explained what my own stand was to be on the flag, I said in that paragraph:
Not all of these have been easy decisions to make, but I was sent to parliament to consider all aspects of proposed legislation and then to vote on behalf of all the people of Victoria. Bearing in mind both the present and the future of Canada, I firmly believe the moves I have outlined are both right and responsible, and I hope Victorians generally will agree.
That letter appeared in the weekly and daily newspapers in Victoria and as a result

Canadian Flag
I had something less than a flood of letters. Altogether since this issue came forward I have had considerably less than 200 letters or communications of one sort or another on the flag issue. Since June 10, when my letter was published in the newspaper, I do not think I have had more than 50 letters. These have by no means all been unfavourable, although I am not going to try to pretend they have all been favourable either. We know this is not an easy matter to decide. I am just pointing out the intensity of public interest and I am trying to show that as far as I can establish we have heard on this matter from considerably fewer than 5 per cent of the people who live in my riding, even if we assume that almost all of those who wrote to the newspaper and sent in their ballots come from Victoria-which they do not, of course, bearing in mind once again the wide distribution of this newspaper.
I should like to leave that point for a moment and go on to another matter which was brought up by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) this afternoon when he claimed that the three maple leaves are a Liberal symbol. I just cannot accept that. I would like to pose these questions to the house. First of all, is it because it was a Liberal symbol that King George V in 1921 at the time of the government of Sir Robert Borden had the three maple leaves designated as the national emblem of Canada and incorporated these same three conjoined maple leaves in the coat of arms of Canada? I do not think so. Is it because it was a Liberal symbol that the former prime minister, now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), had three maple leaves placed on the bumper of his official car? Is it because it is a Liberal symbol that Her Majesty the Queen had the three maple leaves conjoined placed in a position of honour on her royal standard as Queen of Canada? I just do not believe so.
All these uses were made of this symbol because three conjoined maple leaves on a white background mean Canada. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it is because these three maple leaves are above politics, because they are highly respected and, I may dare to say, because they are a noble symbol that I personally find it very easy to support the flag motion, remembering all the time that the second part of the resolution calls for the retention of the union jack as the commonwealth flag. I remind hon. members that the red maple leaf, sometimes one and sometimes three, was used on the funnels of Canadian ships during world war II to distinguish 
them from British and Australian warships. I remember that in my own experience. I am told that today on Cyprus the three maple leaves are being painted and appear on the rocks anywhere near where Canadian soldiers are stationed. I am also told that when the defence committee visited the Atlantic coast the other day these symbols were appearing, perhaps unobtrusively but nevertheless appearing, in various spots down below in the engine rooms and boiler rooms and so forth of the ships in the Atlantic fleet.


Mr. Winch:: A single maple leaf.


David Walter Groos: So I think it can be said without any fear of contradiction that the three red maple leaves also have a very firm place in the affections of our countrymen.
I want to skip over very quickly the matter of a plebiscite. My views on the plebiscite are somewhat the same as those of the mother of parliaments, where in the whole of the life of the parliament of the United Kingdom there has never been a plebiscite. We have had our own rather dismal experience here in Canada where we have had two plebiscites, I believe, neither of which was acted upon and neither of which seemed to solve anything. So this only confirms my attitude toward a plebiscite.
Deciding on a flag is a tough decision. If it were not, I suggest it is a decision which would have been made many years ago. But surely making tough decisions is our job in parliament. That is surely what we were sent here for. We cannot duck our duty by referring this matter to a committee or to the forum of public opinion in a plebiscite. I suggest that we are the biggest, most powerful and most expensive committee there is and if we cannot solve this matter I venture to say that certainly no committee can.
I should like to say something about another reason why I think this matter cannot be referred to a committee. Having regard to the length of time that this matter has been discussed in the house and with all the various ramifications and the stories we have heard about one flag or another, I believe that we ourselves are becoming somewhat confused, but we must think of how confused the public must be on this issue. I should like to point out some aspects of this confusion that have become apparent to me in my investigations, but as I will not have time to finish my address if I give them all I will confine my remarks merely to one. We have been told a lot about the red ensign and told in all sincerity, I know, of how it has been the flag

under which Canadians have fought and died for a number of years, but particularly in the second world war. In my own experience I know that as far as the navy is concerned we saw little of the red ensign, unless a sailor happened to be serving in the merchant navy on a defensively equipped merchant ship. We flew the white ensign. We all know the air force flag which, incidentally, has the R.C.A.F. roundel with a maple leaf in the centre.
When it comes to the army I am on rather dangerous ground, so I took the trouble the other day to visit the national war museum. There I found some relics of Dieppe. I know there are hon. members in this house who were present on that occasion and I suppose that of all the Canadian feats of arms this is one that is remembered best as being a part of Canada. I saw hanging in our Canadian national war museum a flag. Under that flag there was this inscription:
This flag was captured by the enemy during the second Canadian division raid on Dieppe, August 19, 1942.
For nearly two years it hung, a prized trophy on the wall in the office of a German colonel there, and was then packed for shipment to Germany.
The fine loyalty of a French woman prevented this, however,
Madame Jovene, 8 rue Guerrier, Dieppe, extracted it from its packing case and concealed it until, a month later on September 1, 1944, the same second Canadian division recaptured Dieppe, when she proudly returned it to its rightful owners.
This flag, Mr. Speaker, was the union jack. I see my time is running out, but I am almost finished. Our job in this house is to legislate for Canada. Our particular problem at the moment is Canadian unity. I am looking, myself, for the kind of unity we have never had in this country. I hope that this flag will help. As I said before, we can resolve this issue and I, for one, am not unhopeful of the future. If we do not solve the difficulties of our time in our generation, then perhaps if we prepare the ground properly our young people will do so.
I do want to say one more thing, Mr. Speaker. Some reference was made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton) to the fact that he was worried about the division this flag debate is causing within the country. He is frightened by the reaction. He put on the record a letter containing some reference to our fellow Canadians of French speaking origin. I will not dignify it by repeating it and having it placed in Hansard twice. He mentioned the fact a great number of Canadians are not going to accept this flag. Well, if he gets that reaction, it is not the one I get.
Canadian Flag
I should like to say that this brings up the question of who speaks for Victoria. In answer to that question I have just asked myself, I should like to read a short editorial contained in a weekly newspaper in the particular portion of my riding where I live called Oak Bay. Perhaps this indicates something of the reaction to the flag debate of the 95 per cent of the Canadians who have not been heard from so far. This editorial is written by Lance Whittaker, and it is entitled, "Who has The Right to Decide Flag Question?" I quote:
"No editorial comment from The Leader-
This is the name of this newspaper.
-on the flag?
This question has been repeated in many forms in the past two or three weeks.
The answer is simple but somehow difficult to make people believe:	The editor is inhibited
because he is not a Canadian.
Oh yes, he has lived in Canada for 40 years, and he was born in Britain and is a British subject. . .but he has never bothered to write to Ottawa to ask for that piece of paper which would make him a Canadian citizen.
Oh, 1 know it's only a technicality, but technicalities can be mighty important when one is arguing something as personal and close to the heart as our national flag.
All this came home rather forcibly when I sat down to write an editorial on the first announcement of Mr. Pearson's flag plans. The editorial "we" came rather lamely. When it comes to deciding a flag for a country, who is "we"? Obviously, it is those who were fortunate enough to be born in Canada, and those conscientious enough to request citizenship when citizenship was offered. The editor and publisher of The Leader is in neither of these groups. What right, then, to pontificate (under false colours) on the matter of the flag?
Oddly, when I inquired of those who have spoken to me strongly on the subject, (and there are a great many among our readers), it became clear that many making the greatest clamour are in my boat, but they do not seem to think it matters.
It matters to me.
Something else has become clear: Among those who can rightfully claim to be Canadians, by birth or citizenship, a new Canadian flag outweighs the red ensign-
These are his figures, not mine.
-about nine to one. (If you don't believe that, ask people; first ascertaining that they are Canadians.)
The desire for a distinctive flag by a large majority of the Canadians I have spoken to has nothing whatever to do with the Quebec problem. They could care less about Quebec; they are Canadians and they want a Canadian flag.
This is stupid? This is unnatural? I don't think so, and if I did think so, I have no right, as a nonCanadian, to say so.
That is why there has been no Leader editorial on the flag.. .but a letter has gone to Ottawa, to ask citizenship, belatedly, for a man who wants very much to become a Canadian.

Canadian Flag


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


David Walter Groos: Certainly.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I understood the hon. member to say that this would be the most expensive committee that there has been. Do I understand from that the hon. member thinks our indemnity stops if we stop this debate, that the staff of the house would be dismissed and we would save money?


David Walter Groos: No, Mr. Speaker, of course that is not so. There are other things that this house might be doing.


Mr. Dinsdale:: How right you are.


An hon. Member:: You had better talk to your leader.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this discussion for two reasons. First of all to avail myself of a privilege of the house, and also to discharge my responsibility.
At the start of my remarks, I would be remiss not to commend my hon. friends and fellow members who described the aspirations and claims of their fellow citizens with due restraint. I shall follow in their footsteps and show as much restraint as possible, myself, in order not to change the tone of this discussion.
I would like to say, incidentally, that I agree with the views which my fellow member, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton) expressed this afternoon, when he said that our discussions in this house do not always find their true explanation over the mass media.
I agree still more with him when he says that the C.B.C., in order to speak only of one of those mass media, does not serve the people well.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I think that the manner in which the news and commentaries are given on the air frequently misrepresents what occurs in this house. I shall prove it by quoting some remarks made yesterday by a young man to whom I regularly send Hansard. This is what he said. He told me quite simply in the course of our talk: Do you know, Mr. Ricard, that I regularly read Hansard and the papers; and I hardly recognize the news as reported in the newspapers-at least in some papers, I should say-or as broadcast by the C.B.C.

That young man told me that what he read in Hansard was entirely different from what he heard on the C.B.C. newscasts and read in some newspapers.
At the beginning of my remarks, I congratulated my colleagues on this side of the house for the moderate terms they use to air their views. Most of my Anglo-Saxon colleagues in the house did not hide the fact that their constituents support the red ensign and that they feel it is their duty to speak as they do.
I must say that I have a lot of admiration and respect for them, for the courage they have shown in giving to the house the views and aspirations of their constituents, which unfortunately is not the case for the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) who said that although she represents a riding which favours the Canadian red ensign, she will not take her constituents' aspirations and views into account when she casts her vote.
I would also like to be fair towards the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) and offer him a few words of congratulations for the remarks he made yesterday. I think we must thank him for a drop in the number of interruptions which came until today from the people on the government benches who were trying to get untimely statements from us in order to keep up that campaign designed to get the public to believe, if possible, that the people on this side of the house are obstinate and will never give in.
On the contrary, all the members who have spoken on this side of the house displayed a great understanding and also stated their willingness to accept a compromise that would be reasonable for all parties concerned, so as to settle the ticklish problem concerning the national flag issue or rather the national flags, since we are talking about adopting two flags.
I said a while ago that I was rising in order to do my duty towards my constituents. I wish at the outset to state clearly the stand I must take as regards the Canadian flag, while basing myself on my constituents' aspirations and desires.
I must say that the freedom we are enjoying in our party also enables me to state that I am in favour of a national distinctive flag.
On this side of the house, our hands are not already tied by party discipline. We can voice our opinions as we please. We have the right and are free to vote as we see fit, and we also have the right to make our views known in whatever way we choose.

I regret that our hon. friends opposite do not enjoy that same freedom. If I am not mistaken, that should explain why the hon. members from the province of Quebec are not taking part in this debate. On those occasions when they did speak, they limited themselves to bitter remarks-


Lucien Plourde: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to remind the hon. member that the reason we, on this side of the house, are not saying anything on the flag issue is that our position is quite clear. We are definitely in favour of a distinctive flag and against a second flag.
That is why we refrain from speaking. We neither want to waste the time of the house nor bore the Canadian people.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, we heard the same comment last week from the hon. member who has just spoken, and yet, just this afternoon, one of his colleagues rose to speak.
Remembering a certain Good Friday, to be more specific that of 1963, I understand why some members have maintained a stubborn silence in this house. But this is not the case with us; and we are making a point of speaking as we wish in the house.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to remind the hon. member that not one of my colleagues has taken part in the flag debate today. Consequently, I suggest that he should come to the house to see who is present and who is speaking.
Moreover, the hon. member made derogatory remarks concerning an event which took place in 1963, and I ask him to withdraw those remarks.


Mr. Smallwood:: On that point of order, the hon. member said none of his colleagues had spoken. His leader said Quebec had a flag and did not want one.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all three members feel much better. Let us get on with this debate.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I asked that the hon. member withdraw the derogatory remarks he uttered when he referred to an event that happened during 1963.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to withdraw certain remarks if the hon. member would indicate what I implied.
Canadian Flag


Lucien Plourde: When you mentioned a certain Good Friday, and all you have said thereafter.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I regret that some particular events that happened on a certain Good Friday should bring sadness to the hon. member, but I should not be taxed with influencing his feelings. Naturally, I cannot withdraw remarks that are related to events which are not my responsibility.
A few moments ago, I said I was in favour of a distinctive flag. I have been careful not to say that I have taken a fancy to the three maple leaf flag but I am even more revolted with the way this flag was submitted to us.
Taking neither the house nor his cabinet into his confidence, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) went to Winnipeg to make his well known proposal. Even worse, when he came back from western Canada he walked into the house and said: "I have chosen a flag and I ask you to endorse it. A refusal on your part will be considered as a vote of non-confidence." Afterwards, he ordered his followers to toe the party line.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that is a dictatorial way of introducing such an important resolution which has raised such a controversy that the country is now on the verge of splitting up over the issue.
If, at least, we had been warned one way or the other, in the speech from the throne, that we would be called upon to choose a national flag this session, we would have no reason to complain since we would have known what was coming. However, there was nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate that this topic would be discussed in the course of this session.
Members on the government side claim that this legislation is being introduced to fulfil an electoral pledge. What about the other promises concerning issues just as important if not more so than the national flag?
For instance, I remember that during the last election campaign the Liberals promised full employment.
But, has any action been taken to find jobs for the 105,000 unemployed in the province of Quebec?
Among other election promises, there was the appointment of a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada in order to help eastern farmers. There was also the adoption of a labour code and the establishment of a minimum salary of $1.25 per hour. There was also the institution of a portable pension

Canadian Flag
plan. All those promises have yet to be fulfilled. I could mention many other promises, but I will refrain from doing so.
For what purpose, then, was this project of a Canadian flag brought out of the blue? For a very simple purpose, Mr. Speaker. Conscious of its inertia, the government wanted to hide behind this resolution its weaknesses, its indecision and its inability to face up to its responsibilities.
This could have been overlooked if the Prime Minister had not raised the question of non-confidence. But after having done so is it at all conceivable that hon. members opposite would not fulfil their obligations toward their party? I cannot see it at all.
Mr. Speaker, it must be recognized that we are faced with a problem threatening national unity, and to substantiate my allegation, I wish to quote from a few newspaper articles which clearly prove that this legislation has given rise to serious concerns in various quarters.
I have here an article signed by Mr. Guy Cormier and published in La Presse on May 19, 1964 and entitled:
A flag or an expedient?
Having promised a flag to Canadians, Mr. Pearson is unfurling it today before an astonished or indifferent Canada.
Confused and irritated, judging by the noisy reactions to his speech delivered before the Canadian Legion in Winnipeg. Those who are unconcerned refrain from showing their feelings, as is only natural when anything is obtained after an unreasonable waiting period. A distinctive Canadian flag has been requested for a long time in the province of Quebec-
A little further on, the editor says:
The government leader proposes the maple leaf in the name of unity. One can hardly find another great virtue in the name of which he could push his proposal forward. Such unity is a wish, it is not a reality. It is less than ever a reality. Things first come into existence, then the symbols they represent are created. Mr. Pearson is proceeding by means of artificial insemination.
In its issue of May 21, 1964, the newspaper La Presse published the following article under the byline of Gerard Pelletier.
A symbol, yes, but of what?
Nobody will be led to believe that the flag issue is a major problem in Canadian polities. It is a matter which was left to deteriorate instead of being settled; it is only a matter of symbols and, whatever the solution which is adopted, this action by itself will have but little effect on our Canadian life.
That is a further proof, Mr. Speaker, that there are other and more urgent problems which have been tackled this session.

Further on, Mr. Pelletier says:
In fact, claim his supporters, it is not so much a flag that Mr. Pearson is seeking; it is a majority.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that this flag question was brought forward merely for electoral purposes. According to the various polls carried out in the name of the government, if the results had been as anticipated, you and I, Mr. Speaker, would not be here today, we would be in the midst of an election campaign. But after a while, it was found that the pill was not as good as it had been hoped for and for that reason it is intended to have only the three-leaved flag passed. However, according to the information we have, the people who sit on the government benches will refuse to change their original stand.
To give you a better idea of my village, I would like to quote from a couple of articles written by Mr. Harry Bernard, of St. Hya-cinthe, in Le Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe of May 28, 1964. Mr. Bernard wrote, under the title
Mr. Pearson and his Canadian flag proposal
as follows:
Now, Mr. Pearson, the Prime Minister of this country, wants to give his flag to Canada, and he even claims that it is urgent.
In fact, it has been urgent for a long time, and Mr. Pearson never seemed to be too much concerned with that problem in the past.
So he has just discovered the necessity of a flag, and he insists that it should be distinctive.
And Mr. Bernard concluded:
Concerning Mr. Pearson's proposed flag which is seemingly an enlarged copy of the latest postage stamp issued in the country, it does not seem to have been well received.
It is too heavy, too decorative, too old-fashioned, not simple enough, not neat enough.
The maple leaf is acceptable as a symbol, but why should there be three leaves, and why should they be red rather than green?
And in another newspaper from St. Hyacinthe, in an article signed by Mr. Brodeur, one can read:
The Pearson versus Canadian Legion confrontation, last Sunday, in Winnipeg, reassures more or less the French speaking people entertaining some apprehensions, since the Prime Minister declared himself openly in favour of a distinctive flag. However, despite this courageous stand, the French Canadian people still feel some anxiety in connection with this symbolic emblem. They know, indeed, that the red ensign creates much unanimity in the English speaking circles and that the influence exerted by this majority may oblige the government to change its views.
And in conclusion:
To summarize, if the French speaking population cannot get satisfaction with a standard likely to inspire its patriotism, it will approach with more

fervour the possibility of blowing up the bridges between the two nations.
All this to say, Mr. Speaker, that the motion has created in the general public worry and apprehension. I could quote many other editorials, but I shall limit myself to recalling an editorial which appeared in a Liberal newspaper, the Edmonton Journal, and reads in part as follows:

This highly interesting editorial then goes on to say-and I should point out I am quoting from the Gazette, which reproduces the editorial which appeared in the Edmonton Journal-


Mr. Byrne:: What date, please?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It was June 19, 1963. Do you know when that was? No, I mean 1964.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This editorial in the Edmonton
Journal says this:
It should be pointed out that Quebec can expect no more concessions of this magnitude.
This is a Liberal paper saying this. The other day in one of the French language newspapers those words were attributed to one of my hon. friends, because he has quoted them. That is why we say that some of the publicity given this debate is not correct. Those words were not the words of my hon. friend from Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko); they were the words of the Edmonton Journal.


Mr. Boulanger:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: With pleasure when I am through. However, I still have many things to say.
We are accused, Mr. Speaker, of filibustering.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Can you do anything else? [Translation]


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I think that this systematic campaign of whispering with a view to discouraging speakers from talking, is starting over again and that these people will have to be called to order.
I would ask particularly to the hon. member for Kootenay East who has just interrupted me-

If the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) has so much to say, why does
Canadian Flag
he not stand up and tell us what is his position with regard to the proposal which is before us? How is he going to vote on the first part of the resolution? How is he going to vote on the second part of the resolution? I should like to ask the same question of the members from the province of Quebec. Let them stand up and tell us how they are going to vote, because we are anxious to know. I see two ministers here from the province of Quebec. We are very much interested in knowing what is going to be their stand. Let them stand up and say something, because we would be interested to hear them.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked me how I am going to vote. I have not spoken on this matter but I would be very interested to know how the hon. member is going to vote and what he stands for. Is he going to support a distinctive flag for Canada? If he is, then why does he not sit down? He is saying nothing.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Is it any wonder that no one else but the hon. gentleman can say something here, because he thinks he has a monopoly on intelligence.

Since the beginning of this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have been accused of filibustering-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Who made those accusations? Those who do not have the courage to rise in this house and indicate their position. Their consciences bother them and they do not have enough courage to rise and express their feelings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I want to remind you that you have only 10 minutes left for your speech.


Mr. Sauve:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I will pay in his own coin my hon. friend who has been so kind to me when I asked a question recently. When I am finished with my speech, I will answer his question, but not now.


Maurice Sauvé: I cannot understand the statement of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. I think I answered his question concerning feed grain.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The minister should at least understand that he should wait until the end of my speech.

Canadian Flag


Maurice Sauvé: I rose three or four times to answer your questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had remarked in French a few minutes ago that the hon. member had only ten more minutes under our rules, and I think he should have full and ample opportunity to finish his speech.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I have been interrupted a good many times, and I trust you will deduct the time which has been taken as a result.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, we are being accused of wanting to divide this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We are being accused of delaying the proceedings of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, we must always be a little patient with our hon. friends opposite. Since they cannot speak, they have to do something and I think we should let them make a bit of noise. Let us be patient and allow them to make noise with their hands, which is just as good as if they were using their mouths.
Who conducts the business of parliament in this house, if not the government?
The whole responsibility for the march of events in the house rests upon the government. If the government, and I am not the only one to say so, brought forward this measure at an inauspicious moment, it must take the responsibility for it and not try to shift upon the opposition the odium of its blunder. The members of the government are the only responsible-


Mr. Rochon:: The flag is our responsibility, yes it is true.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is the government which has the responsibility-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Take all the time you need. I see the hon. member for Laval; like the others, the only thing he can do is interject from his seat. Stand up. How are you going to vote on the second resolution?


Jean-Léo Rochon: The first resolution not the second one is being discussed now.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, could I direct a question to the hon. member who has asked me the same question twice? I would like to answer his first question-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Later, Mr. Speaker. We saw that as soon as the flag issue was introduced, all the newspapers in the pay of the Liberal party started their campaign and right away we, in the Conservative party, were accused of indulging in a filibuster.
And yet, we had not expressed our views in the house.
These are the Liberal tactics which consist of setting the east against the west as that party has always done.
I will give you, Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I will give you evidence of what I am saying-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Mercier is rising on a point of order.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, since the member who has the floor is speaking in French, I know that it is difficult for you at times to follow the debate closely and every point of his speech, but would you kindly call the hon. member to order, because his comments have nothing to do with the subamendment.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If the hon. member had been in the house yesterday, he would have heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce deliver a speech which was completely irrelevant to the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair must take its own responsibility in respect of whether a member, in its opinion, is in order or not. I admit that the hon. member has been making some very general statements. Nevertheless, from time to time it seems to me his main thesis has been and is in respect of the design of the flag.


Malcolm MacInnis: On the point of order raised by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the hon. member is casting a reflection on the Chair's ability to understand in both languages.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I do possess the ability to understand speeches in both languages. I am sure I understand English better than that hon. member understands

French. I am able to follow what hon. members are saying in both languages, and I am proud to say so. The remark made by the hon. member just points out his ignorance.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Well, bully for you.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that hon. members opposite advocate a policy of disunity. I am going to prove it, because I have here a sheet from the newspaper Le Clairon of St. Hyacinthe, in which the Liberal party published on April 4, 1963, that is, during the election campaign, the following advertisement:
Let us prepare the future of our children.
This ad read as follows:
The right to education is a fundamental right, but the Conservatives would only grant it to the English people.
That is how the Liberal party has always tried to divide the country.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This debate is on the subamendment, but as it is now ten minutes after nine, I regret to say to the hon. member that his time is up.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot allow me a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker-

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I have been cut off before my time was up.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house willing to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, as I note that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot does not intend to go on with his speech, could I ask him a question now?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: My time is up.


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in the house on this occasion. I should first like to congratulate the many fine speakers who have spoken in this house in respect
Canadian Flag
of the subamendment. I certainly do not agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) when he refers to these speeches as part of a filibuster. I do agree with the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) when he said that he believed, rightly or wrongly, that everyone who has taken part in this debate has done so with sincerity and integrity. I believe these people represent the constituents for whom they have spoken. I do not agree with the unreasonable statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have sat throughout this debate and listened to some very fine and educational remarks in reference to this subamendment.
Mr. Speaker, last week I was invited to participate in a very wonderful ceremony in my constituency. This ceremony was in fact the official opening of a powwow on the Thunderchild Indian reservation. I was amazed at what took place during this ceremony, and a great deal went through my mind when I saw the R.C.M.P. officers dressed in their scarlet tunics standing at attention, along with these native Canadians, during the raising of the red ensign. I remembered at that time that here in parliament we were trying to destroy that symbol which these people have accepted so graciously. This fact caused me to do a lot of thinking. I have thought since I arrived back in the House of Commons that it was too bad that some of those members on the opposite side were not able to take part in that ceremony and witness how these people prize the red ensign. When I stood there and heard the national anthem sung in the Cree language I could not help but think of what was going on in parliament.
In the subamendment the first question set forth is: "Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign"? We have many reasons to be in favour of the Canadian red ensign when we look back and think of what it has meant to us down through the years. However, one thing I have noted in the debate and which I have admired is that every speaker who has taken part on this side has said he is quite in agreement with some modifications being made to the red ensign if necessary to create unity in this great country. I have been very happy to see this attitude and I was also pleased with the proposal that the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), placed before the house and the government. I fail to see how the government could not accept such a proposal. There was no mention of the flag question in the speech from the throne

Canadian Flag
at the commencement of this session of parliament and I cannot understand why the flag resolution could not be withdrawn at this time in favour of the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.
Since the government took office it has withdrawn much of the legislation it has put before the house, and I think it would not hurt the government to accept the fact once again that they have made a blunder and to withdraw the resolution they have placed on the order paper, which is so unnecessary at this time having in mind all the disunity that the government has already created with the B and B gang. Without a doubt I think they should withdraw the resolution, admit that once again they have taken off in the wrong direction and come forward with a proposal for a committee as suggested by the two members to whom I have referred. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) admitted as much yesterday and more Liberals should have been in the house to listen to the very fine speech he made. As found on page 7033 of Hansard he 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-
He admits this is so, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that as time goes on it will be found that there are a great many more people who are behind the red ensign. I recall that when I went home to my constituency on week ends at the time this matter first came up for debate people were very lukewarm and not much concerned about the flag debate or a change in the flag. In many cases they said to me: Have you fellows got nothing else to do down there but debate the flag? However, I have noticed lately that it is a different story. They come and pat me on the back and say: "Don't you fellows give in with respect to this very rude thing that the government is trying to do to this country". In my constituency I have people from every ethnic group in Europe. I might say I am proud of the French blood in my veins and the Irish blood also, but I am sure if my late mother and father were here they would be happy with the stand I am taking. My father was reared in Quebec before going to western Canada, and we were very happy to live under the red ensign. As I have said, however, we would be perfectly willing to accept some modification to show the great traditions of the founding races of this nation.
In my constituency there are many people who came from the province of Quebec and I have not received one letter opposing the

red ensign as our national flag. I have people from every ethnic group in Europe in my constituency and I have not received one letter or heard one word from them opposing the red ensign. I have not received a single letter supporting the three maple leaves flag. I think it is a shame that this flag should be forced on the people at this time. I disagree with many who talk about the great expense this debate and a plebiscite would be to the country and all the tommyrot they utter in an attempt to force the opposition to give up trying to discharge its responsibility. Members of parliament are paid by the year as are the staff. The only additional cost is the stenographic staff. I say that we have our democratic rights and that if we want to stand up for the people we represent we have no other alternative but to oppose this ridiculous proposal, and we must do so.
Not having referred to the flag question in the speech from the throne I think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) acted very unjustly when he appeared as guest speaker before that great body, the Canadian Legion and told them that this flag would be the flag whether they liked it or not. He was invited there as the guest speaker but he took advantage of the time and the opportunity to make a political speech and to tell them that this would be the flag whether they liked it or not. I think the Legion had no alternative but to boo and jeer him. He was invited there as a guest speaker but he took the opportunity to make a political speech and to try to unfurl his flag before that great organization whose members have done so much in two world wars and who are solidly behind the Canadian red ensign. I think this was a disgrace.
Many have seen the cartoons discrediting this great organization, the Canadian Legion, by implying that only the drunks in the Legion were supporting the red ensign. I think this is a shame. Many people in my constituency have not written letters but have come to me and said: If there is a majority in favour of this flag why do you fellows not go along with it? I say that these are people who would give up their flag and country for a political party, and in my opinion that is a shame. I do not rate very highly any group of people who will give up their flag, their country and their traditions for a political party.
The second question in the subamendment is: "Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritages of both founding races?"

I think I have covered that point. It has been definitely shown that we in this party are willing to go along with certain changes in the red ensign to show distinctly the heritages of the two founding races. I think this is very important. I for one would hate to see the union jack removed from any distinctive Canadian flag. I believe it has a place "there and I think we have every right to ask that it be left there. But I would not oppose adding the fleur-de-lis or any other symbol. There are many ways in which this could be done.
I support strongly the proposal made by the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle but I also have a proposal I should like the government to consider. I suggest that the provinces should be brought into the picture. Let their representatives have a say as to what should be the Canadian flag. I think this is very Important, Mr. Speaker, because when I go from one province to another across this *country I do not want to find each one with a different symbol. I think this would be a shame. I would go along with the proposal for a committee to be set up on which each province would have representation and have an opportunity to voice its opinion. I am sure we have men and women who are qualified to be members of such a committee. I am sure this committee would come out with a flag of which we could all be proud, and I am *sure that the heritage of the two founding races would be represented on such a flag. Then we could go from one province to another saying, this is our Canadian flag.
You go across the border to the south and go from one state to another and you will not find a different flag. We should have our own, distinctive Canadian flag. I think we should be broadminded enough to take this question out of politics by setting up a committee upon which all provinces would be represented. This committee would come out with a flag of which we could all be proud. We will never arrive at a decision in the House of Commons. We are, I suppose, trying to bring politics into this question of arriving at a distinctive Canadian flag. This reminds me of a cartoon I saw recently in one of the weekly newspapers. A tourist was standing looking up at two flags, one was the Esso sign and the other was the three maple leaf design. He said, "Just which one is your distinctive Canadian flag?" This is the pre-*dicament in which we find ourselves. We are
Canadian Flag
well aware of the fact that very few provinces are going to accept the three maple leaf design.
When I return to western Canada and go through the cities I find that people realize something is going to be taken away from them which they have held dear and you can see more ensigns flying than ever in the history of our country. We should pull ourselves together. The leaders should reach agreement to take this resolution out of the Commons at this stage, set up a committee jointly with the provinces and bring in a flag of which we can all be proud. We were told in the early stages of this flag controversy that there was going to be a free vote. How quickly that wilted away. There will be no free vote.
We recall that there were not supposed to be two flags at the start. However, Joey Smallwood was not satisfied and said he was going to fly the union jack in Newfoundland. Then they introduced the union jack as a second flag. This is ridiculous. Surely, we can get down to business here and bring in a truly Canadian flag of which we can all be proud, and give all the provinces a chance to say that they were able to express their views on this flag. I do not know why the flag question was introduced at this time because there was no mention of it in the speech from the throne.
One of the questions referred to in the subamendment is: Are you in favour of the three maple leaves? I think I have made it very clear where I stand on the three maple leaves. We already have them on the red ensign. I have always respected the maple leaf, even though it does not grow in my constituency. I have always respected it because it has been our symbol as long as I can remember. However, I go along with the statement made by her worship the mayor of Ottawa, that this flag looks like three dead maple leaves on a field of surrender. This is what it looked like to me. I am sure a great many members sitting across the way feel the same way because I have heard some of them express their opinions on this flag.
Then, the fourth question in the subamendment is: Are you in favour of a one maple leaf flag? The one maple leaf flag does not mean any more to me than the three maple leaf flag. If something were added in the flag such as a beaver, a sheaf of wheat, a buffalo or even a good Hereford bull, that would mean more to me. These are some of my views on this subject. As I pointed out, the maple leaf does not grow in my constituency. I am sure, as many members of parliament

Canadian Flag
will agree, we have many designers in this country and if we had a committee on which all the provinces of Canada were represented, we would have no difficulty in arriving at a distinctive flag.
I do not go along with those people, Mr. Speaker, who are saying how terrible it is that we are holding up parliament. We are not holding up parliament. We are representing constituencies and we have to exercise our democratic rights. We are well aware of the fact that if this three maple leaf flag is adopted we will have it for a long time. This is the reason people here are fighting this issue. They want justice and that is all these people want. They are not filibustering. They are speaking up for their democratic rights and they have a right to be heard.
I do not blame the Prime Minister alone for this situation. I blame hon. members sitting opposite for allowing this flag question to be introduced. What were they doing in caucus when they allowed this measure to be brought forward? They talk about a free vote, but they have no free vote. I blame those who are sitting on the benches opposite for not voicing their opinions, and allowing this matter to come before parliament. They should have spoken up instead of acting like a bunch of trained seals. I hope the Prime Minister of this country, that great Nobel prize winner, will take hold of this thing and remove it from the House of Commons. He would be making another retreat but he has made so many now that one more will not hurt. He should set up a committee and let us get on with some of the other business this government promised the people of Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate this evening for two reasons. I feel I have an obligation, on behalf of the people I represent in the House of Commons, to place before this house some of the views that have been indicated to me by letter and otherwise. The second reason is that I think we have reached a stage in this debate when some of us at least should be discussing ways and means or possibilities of reaching an agreement on this resolution and the amendments to it.
I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.) (Mr. Groos) earlier this evening because I am faced with a situation similar to that which he described. I have received letters, telegrams and petitions from the people I represent expressing a wide variety of viewpoints on this issue. I wish to say, also, that I am in sympathy to

some extent with the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) who has just resumed his seat when he says we should take political partisanship out of the debate on a flag for Canada.
Before this can be done, however, there are one or two essential concessions which must be made. One of these, in my opinion, is that there should be a declaration by the leaders of all parties in this house on behalf of their followers that there will be a completely free vote. As I said, I think I have an obligation to present to this house some of the expressions of opinion I have received. I have gone over these communications very carefully-there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of them- and I think the five or six from which I intend to quote are representative of the whole of the correspondence I have received. First, I have a letter from Taber from which I wish to read an extract. It says:
I hope you will be able to support the government with your vote on the flag issue. I am not particularly concerned about the design chosen but I am, like most of those with whom I have talked, in favour of a distinctive flag for Canada free of British or French symbols.
I am a British ex-serviceman of the second world war and a member of the Canadian Legion. The official attitude of the Legion X consider ill-founded.
My Legion branch will be informed of the contents of this letter.
Well, here is an ex-serviceman and a member of the Legion who has clearly stated his position. He is in favour of a flag for Canada which does not carry the symbols of any other country. Here is another letter:
Please be advised that a telegram has been sent to the Prime Minister of Canada which reads as follows-that the Medicine Hat junior chamber of commerce has gone on record as favouring the flag chosen by the government of Canada as the national flag of Canada.
I was not at this meeting when the resolution was passed by the junior chamber of commerce, but I understand there was a sharp division of opinion during the course of the debate and that the motion barely passed by a very small majority.
Here is another letter:
As one of your constituents I would like to register a strong protest on the design of the projected flag as proposed by Prime Minister Pearson.
While personally I would prefer the red ensign because it is the flag for which our boys fought and died, however, I would not mind a flag with one maple leaf (green or multicoloured on a red background).

This is a letter which indicates that the writer is not in favour of the design suggested in the motion. The writer is not particularly adamant about retaining the red ensign, either. So here we have another point of view. Here is a further letter:
I hope I am not too late to let you know of my very strong feelings on the red ensign.
As far as my family, relatives and friends are concerned, we believe we have a distinctive Canadian flag and want no tampering with it in any way, shape or form.
I plead with you to vote against Lester Pearson's pennant and if it means another election that is a small matter in comparison.
I think this represents a somewhat extreme position. Nevertheless, it is an opinion held by some of my constituents.
I also have a letter here from the I.O.D.E. of Medicine Hat saying:
We wish to inform you that, we of the municipal chapter I.O.D.E., are in favour of the red ensign being upheld as the national flag of Canada.
So it goes. Here is another:
Dear Mr. Olson,
In your work as our representative in parliament, it may help you to know how some of us feel and think on certain issues.
The ensign with its union jack, and the Canadian coat of arms on a red background holds a great deal of meaning to me.
Having worked with girl guides of Canada for many years, I have learned the legends of the patron saints. These men were not national heroes but dedicated Christians. It is this spiritual value that is uplifting and inspiring.
When I see the maple leaf, there is no special feeling involved except that we used to do a drill and sing the fine song in school; and a special folk dance I know ends with "The Maple Leaf Forever". The leaf itself holds no spiritual inspiration.
And, finally:
As a resident of your constituency, I wish to express my opinion on the Canadian flag issue.
I feel it is very important to the future of our country that we have a flag which is truly a Canadian flag. I am in favour of a maple leaf design or whatever symbol, that is a "Canadian" one, is adopted.
Both the fleur-de-lis and the union jack have flown over our soil in the past. The red ensign I feel is also a flag of the past. It is an adaptation of the flag of another country. It cannot any longer be a true symbol of a country that is populated by peoples of such varied and diverse cultural backgrounds. New Canadians arrive daily in our country. Let them be able to identify with a symbol that is truly Canadian. Canada certainly lacks national unity and sometimes I think a strong national feeling. Our feelings are either too "British" or too "American". Let us hope that a new Canadian flag will set us going as a strong united people with a strong national feeling for our great and wonderful country.
I may say, also, that all the Royal Canadian Legion branches in my constituency, sent me letters or telegrams expressing their
Canadian Flag
desire that Canada should retain the red ensign. But the point I am trying to make in reading these examples of correspondence is that in my constituency there is support for the retention of the red ensign, support for a flag with the three maple leaves combined on one stem and an expression of support for a single maple leaf design. This places a member in a position in which it is impossible for him to vote on the subamendment, or on the amendment, or on the main motion, and represent all his people. I think one has to consider some of the alternatives. I wish to quote an editorial which appeared in the Medicine Hat News of May 14. It says this:
There should be no nonsense about voting along party lines in parliament when the government brings in its design for a national flag.
This was written prior to the introduction of the resolution.
This is not a matter which should be decided along party lines.
Prime Minister Pearson hinted that this may be the case when he remarked in the Commons Tuesday that "when the time comes to subject the decision of the government to the House of Commons, I would hope that every member of the house would vote as his conscience dictates and that there would be no question of confidence or non-confidence in a party sense."
Mr. Pearson is quite right, but he should go further and declare this a "free vote". Partisan politics have no place in an issue such as this. Certainly not the type of politicking demonstrated by Mr. John Diefenbaker, Tuesday who, after hearing the Prime Minister's remarks, said "another retreat".
It is precisely this kind of petty politicking which should be avoided when the question of a national flag comes before the house.
Mr. Pearson is right, too, when he says the issue should not become one of confidence or nonconfidence in the government.
This is a matter for each member to vote on as an individual; a vote to be dictated by his constituents' wishes in so far as he knows them and his own conscience.
Let the issue be faced squarely and honestly with no taint of party politics.
Even tonight we heard the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu), a member of the Progressive Conservative party, suggest that partisan politics ought to be taken out of the decision with respect to this flag. I submit to you, sir, that there are three essential courses that must be followed if we are to avoid the difficulty that I can see down the road in this connection. First of all we must have a firm statement from the Prime Minister that when the vote comes on the subamendment, the amendment and the resolution, it will be a completely free vote. This vote should not be tied to anything except the choosing of a national flag for Canada.

Canadian Flag
By that I mean it should not be tied to the threat of an election; it should not be tied to some kind of compromise or concession with regard to anything else.
There has been a great deal of talk during this debate about the divisions in the country. This is beginning to sound a little hollow, because it seems to me that the longer this debate goes on, the more we are agitating those divisions rather than healing them, if they do exist. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the first consideration must be a free vote without any consideration other than selecting a national flag for this country. I should like to quote from a special letter to the Prime Minister of Canada from the Canadian corps association. This letter is dated August 5, and the last paragraph says:
The flag issue as it stands now, is destroying the members of parliaments' democratic right as elected representatives to render a just decision, and similarly, if this subject is not settled by a plebiscite, the people of this country will be forced to vote for the candidate in their constituency who shares their flag views.
This is the important part, Mr. Speaker:
What a sorry group of M.P.s we might have if candidates' over-all ability is pushed out of focus by only their opinion on Canada's flag.
I think we have come to the stage in this debate when we must seek some kind of compromise, if you want to call it that. When two immovable positions are taken, you may ask yourself, compromise in regards to what? If the reasons for taking those positions are not quite comprehensible, then it is difficult to decide how you can compromise. I hope the introduction of this particular design for a distinctive flag for Canada was predicated only on the desire to have a national flag adopted by parliament, and nothing else. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because we hear rumours that some of the Liberal members may add to their stature or enhance their position, particularly in the province of Quebec, if they can go back to the people with this pennant and say, "We of a Liberal government introduced into parliament and passed a distinctive flag for Canada". But the other side of the two positions has also to be considered. If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his followers are continuing this debate solely because they do not want this particular design and they want the red ensign to remain as Canada's national flag, that is also an honest position. But we hear rumours that there may be some enhancement of their political position in parts of the country as long as they keep this filibuster

going. I read one letter that indicates there is one person at least in my constituency who would welcome a general election on the flag issue. I want to say that I do not accept that position, Mr. Speaker. As I said, there are two sides to this question and I think we have to try honestly to find a compromise that will be accepted by both sides of the house. To do that, one thing is essential; that is, that every member or, if this is not possible, at least the spokesmen for every political party shall assume the responsibility of trying to obtain the acceptance of the design after it is passed, whatever it is, and will not attempt to use it as a political wrench in an election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: One other thing that I think is important, Mr. Speaker, now the debate has gone this far and we have found a hardening of positions on both sides of the issue, is that when the flag is adopted, it ought to be a flag of parliament. At the present time I think many members of this house, and most of the Canadian people, feel that the design explained in the resolution-that is, three red maple leaves conjoined, on a white background with blue borders-is in fact a Liberal design or that it is, as it has been referred to, Pearson's pennant. I believe that the government, in order to reach some kind of compromise, ought to accept an amendment to the design and that amendment should come from somewhere in the opposition, be it from the Conservatives or any one of the other parties. Then when the decision has been taken, it will not have been a Liberal design or a Pearson pennant railroaded through parliament by sheer weight of numbers in the vote.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the three suggestions I have made-they are not new suggestions; I am not suggesting they are-ought to be seriously considered by both sides and both sides should try to come together on this question; otherwise I can see that this debate is going to go on and on. I believe that the positions, while they have hardened considerably, will become even worse. Then, when the decision has been taken, there will be wide division in the country in regard to accepting that flag, if it is the one described on the order paper at the present time.
Our party has stated over and over again that we will have a free vote in so far as our members are concerned. We are free to vote as our conscience directs and dictates on all the amendments and the resolution itself. This is what the Prime Minister asked the members of the house to do back in

May; I think it was early in May but I am not sure of the exact date. It was approximately May 10. I think the time has come when he should give an undertaking on
behalf of the government that they recognize that this is the way out. I would not be particularly concerned if the flag debate went on for another week or ten days, in spite of the fact that it is interfering with some of the other business to which parliament could be attending. It is not an unimportant matter to me, however. I do not know what the count is now, but something like 70 to 75 members must have spoken. I think that the rest of the members of this house, the other 190 or so, should also have the opportunity to speak on this flag debate before it terminates. Of course, what is happening is that hen. members do not speak just once. Amendments and subamendments are moved which provide an opportunity for each member to speak more than once, and this certainly carries the suspicion of a filibuster.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that we have to reach some kind of agreement, whether it be called a compromise or anything else, so that we can in fact get on with this matter. As I have said, I think we must have a declaration that there is going to be a free vote for the members of all parties in this house. Second, there should be an indication that the government will be willing to accept an amendment from the opposition so that the flag chosen will be the flag of parliament. That matter can be worked out at a leaders' meeting so that a suitable amendment can be proposed and accepted. Following that, Mr. Speaker, the matter could come to a vote and every hon. member of this house should assume the responsibility of obtaining or trying to obtain the acceptance of his constituents of the design, whatever it is and whenever it passes.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Throughout the hon. gentleman's remarks he constantly described a filibuster the sincere and honest efforts made by the Conservative opposition. Would he indicate to the house his opinion of what constitutes a filibuster?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the definition of a filibuster is available to any hon. member who cares to look in one of the good dictionaries on the table. My impression of a filibuster is that it is a deliberate attempt 20220-449
Canadian Flag
to continue a debate for the sake of having time lapse, regardless of whether or not there is anything new to say on the subject.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: One further question, if I may. Would the hon. member not agree that the word "filibuster" has no place in the Canadian parliament because it is an American process whereby a man can speak for unlimited time and read into the record any amount of material, which can come from Sears-Roebuck or even a telephone directory. In this house, as I understand it, we can speak for only 40 minutes and our remarks must be relevant to the topic on hand. Would he not agree that this debate is far removed from a filibuster?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I do not have a dictionary before me so I can only give the hon. member a vivid, literal definition of the word. Perhaps the manner in which a filibuster is carried on in Canada is somewhat different from the United States, but I would suggest that the connotation put on the word "filibuster" by most hon. members in this house, as well as most Canadians, is completely in accord with the definition which I tried to give a few minutes ago.


William Skoreyko: Would the hon. member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


William Skoreyko: Would the hon. member permit another question. I wonder whether I could ask him exactly where he stands with respect to the resolution as it is, as opposed to the red ensign. He has read into the record letters both for and against the red ensign, but it appeared to me that he slithered along in the middle, a tactic for which his leader is well known. I do not want to imply that I have known the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) for this particular habit, but where does he stand?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my speech I made it abundantly clear that I felt it was my obligation and my duty to put before this parliament a reasonably accurate expression of opinion on the part of the people I represent in the constituency of Medicine Hat. I have done that. Now, if immediately after having done so I am going to have to say, before I have listened to the balance of the debate, what position I am going to take in this matter, it seems to me that this precludes my having an open mind on the suggestions which may be put forward within the next few days.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood)

Canadian Flag
rising to ask a question of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson)?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Yes, Mr. Speaker. For the last 20 minutes he straddled the fence and, like most Social Crediters, spoke out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. Would he now tell us whether or not he supports the red ensign?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) wanted to ask me a question. I do not think we should accept the preamble to his question, which was really a speech and he has already had an opportunity to make his speech. He asked me point blank whether or not I am in favour of the red ensign. I want to say to him and to all other members of this house that when I was elected to represent the people of Medicine Hat I did not have a firm opinion on every single issue which was going to come before this parliament.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: All right, sit down.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But I did give an undertaking to them that I would consider matters in the light of the arguments presented to me and the expressions of opinion voiced by my constituents, and then I would reach a decision. I would say to the hon. member that if he will allow this subamendment, the amendment and the resolution come to a vote he will very soon find out how the hon. member for Medicine Hat feels about this issue.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne).


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, this will only be a small participation in the debate, but since the hon. member asked for the definition of a filibuster, I should like to point out that I have been unable to find a definition. However, I understand that it is a prolonged debate in order to prevent a vote. Nevertheless, there is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Kootenay East asking for the floor to make a speech or does he wish to ask a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will have an opportunity to make a speech and to participate in this debate later. The Chair would like to recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) at this time.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Surely, Mr. Speaker, I can have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, might I say at the outset that quite often I have to compete with others who wish to represent my constituency. To begin with I should like, through you, Mr. Speaker, to direct a remark to the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), who I thought cast certain reflections on the Chair a while ago when he inferred that the Speaker himself was not following the debate because of his inability to follow the French language. On my point of order the hon. member for Mercier, of course, got to his feet in order to give me a lecture on biculturalism. I should like to say to him, through you, sir, "Duin do bheal" I have no intention of translating that remark, although I am sure the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) understands it. The hon. member for Mercier is not aware that that is Gaelic, the native tongue of my ancestors, and I assure him I have no intention of translating it for his benefit. However, it is a commonly used phrase which could not be interpreted as complimentary.
In taking part in this debate I hope the Chair will see fit to grant me the same privileges enjoyed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), by the member for York East (Mr. Otto) and others.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Do not worry, you have never been restrained by a word.


Malcolm MacInnis: A moment ago the hon. member for Kootenay East rose and attempted to read again from a book. That seems to be his only ability, because so far he has not taken part in the debate. I suggest he refer to Hansard of yesterday where he will find that he is on record no less than 16 times, yet said nothing.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it is my hope that I will enjoy the same privileges accorded to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and others. I am sorry the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) is not present, but in the event he does come and raise a point of order I should like to recommend some reading for him. I suggest that he read the second column on page 2892 of Hansard where the following words, uttered by you, sir, are recorded:
My understanding of the practice in these debates is to consider both the amendment and the subamendment at the same time and not he too restrictive so as to eliminate all discussion-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member will wait until a point of order is raised before replying to it. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I would invite him to come to the point at issue. I think what he read a moment ago would be relevant if a point of order was raised.


Malcolm MacInnis: I will abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I expected a point of order to be raised and could see no harm in quoting from a ruling by yourself made in this house. I certainly agree that no better individuals could be quoted in this house than Sir Winston Churchill, and some others, and suggest that perhaps I should be given the opportunity of quoting matters which concern this debate in order to substantiate the argument I intend to put forward. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I have recommended that reading material for the Minister of Justice.
I should now like to quote the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as they are recorded at page 6957 of Hansard of August 18, 1964. I feel these words are relevant to my argument that I should be given the same privilege accorded to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the last column on page 6957 the minister is reported as having stated:
This subamendment is prolonging the debate, in my view quite unnecessarily. Anything that is being said on the subamendment could have been said on the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, those words were uttered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce within a day of the time he supported a vote on a ruling contrary to that statement. He did so to suit his own purposes. Many other members on that side of the house saw fit to reverse their feelings within a 24-hour period to further their own aims.
The Prime Minister when introducing this resolution, and this has been repeated time and time again, made it quite clear at the outset that he hoped each and every member of parliament would take the opportunity of speaking on this issue. The same Prime Minister in this house criticized members for doing what he invited them to do and used the word "filibuster" in reference to our speeches made in acceptance of that invitation.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone has an interpretation of the word "filibuster". Without becoming involved in the United States meaning of that word, or its meaning in other countries, I should like to state that a filibuster in this house would be defined as an attempt by one party, left to its own devices, 20220-449J
Canadian Flag
to continue a debate as long as possible and, to use the words of the last speaker, use up as much time as possible. That in my opinion is what a filibuster might be.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) appearing on the T.V. network described a filibuster as something that denied him three minutes in this house.


Howard Russell MacEwan: It was a policy.


Malcolm MacInnis: It was not a policy, as suggested by the hon. member for Pictou, but a progress report. I wonder whether we might expect the minister to give the C.B.C. another progress report at 10.30 tonight?
In reply to the suggestion that we are conducting a filibuster I should like each and every member to read Hansard of yesterday. Yesterday was a short day but the debate took less than 29 pages in Hansard. On those 29 pages are recorded 61 interruptions. Of the 29 pages, two full pages were required by rulings from the Chair. Surely no one can accuse us of carrying on a filibuster in view of the fact there were 61 recorded interruptions in those few pages. There were 61 identified interruptions. I am sure there were a great many more that were not identified.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Howard Russell MacEwan: The republican wants to know about the flag.


Malcolm MacInnis: Is the republican talking over there again? Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for my inability to understand that language in which the hon. member speaks. I have been scolded before for this inability. I am quite willing to sit down and put on my earpiece and listen to that hon. member, who does not seem to have the guts to stand up in his place and put what he has to say on record. Perhaps it is his intention to hide what he is saying from me by using his native tongue. Please get up on your feet and say what you have to say so that I can put on my earpiece and listen to the translation.


Auguste Choquette: I should like to speak to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I will do so in the hon. member's native tongue. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wishes to know if I have guts enough to express my views. I am in favour of the three maple leaves flag. Is that clear enough? I will vote for that design instead of carrying on a

Canadian Flag
stupid filibuster. If my friend wishes, I will repeat that in French.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think there is a question of privilege there.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure a review of tomorrow's Hansard will indicate that great assistance has been given toward the prolonging of this debate by hon. members on the other side of the house. In my own interpretation of a filibuster you could hardly say there is one going on here.


An hon. Member:: Nothing like the truth.


Malcolm MacInnis: During the debate charges have been made. We run into charges every day that the Conservative party is delaying the business of the nation. This is a most ridiculous charge and nobody is more aware of how ridiculous it is than the government. Every member in this house, both on this side and the other side, knows that if the government so wishes, the legislation to face us at the beginning of the week can be anything but the flag resolution. They could bring forward the pension legislation, provided it was ready or they could bring forward any other legislation they wished. Nobody on this side of the house has any control at all over the legislation that the government wishes to present to the house. Any inference that the discussion of the flag is holding up the nation's business is only an excuse on the part of the goverment for their inability to prepare the business of the nation and place it before the house.
In this respect I might also refer to further words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) as found on page 6958 of Hansard:
May I say this to my hon. friend, that if a party is determined to prolong the debate there is very little that can be done by any group, regardless of whether it is in the minority or majority.
I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is trying to deny the responsibility of the government in presenting legislation to the house. I would also point out that he has referred to the government and his own party as a group. He calls them a group. There is no mention of the leadership of the party. Here I might draw a parallel with what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) once said about the party. You will recall his famous statement. The Liberal party has the platform and the program, and we think we have a leader. The Minister of Trade and

Commerce has not even gone as far as to recognize the fact there is a party or a leader. He now refers to them as a group.


An hon. Member:: He wants the leader's job.


Malcolm MacInnis: That is true. We all suspect he has his own ambitions.


An hon. Member:: Get back on the track.


Malcolm MacInnis: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that order be called. If the member insists on hollering "get back on the track" I simply say that in my opening remarks I asked for the same privilege that was granted the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was permitted to wander in any direction he chose without one word being uttered on that side of the house, without one word from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) who consistently rises in his place and tries to impose regulation on members on this side while members of his own party wander free and easy wherever they choose. The member who sits in his seat and hollers "get back on the track" should have been here to see the example set by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, an example which, if the Chair permits, I will follow. I would appreciate it very much if members on that side would not sit in their seats and insist on hollering and trying to direct speakers on this side in the direction they would like to see them go rather than allowing them to follow the example set by their own minister.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, this debate was thrown wide open by the complete disregard of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the ruling of the house as to what form the debate should follow. You say "get back on the track". That is a very difficult thing for this government to do because they have not found a track to travel on.
With respect to the presentation of this resolution to the house, it is my opinion that prior knowledge was given to members on that side so as to permit them to make what they considered bold statements back in their own ridings. I refer now to the members from the Halifax constituency in particular. Prior to the resolution being presented to the house these members made big, bold statements as to what their stand was going to be on the flag and under what conditions they would vote for the three maple leaves flag. I say that in my opinion they had prior knowledge. I am also going to say something factual about one of the cabinet ministers. I must say there are not too many of them here, but among those present-


Mr. Monteilh:: More than usual.


Malcolm MacInnis: The Minister of Trade and Commerce indicates there are six. When you consider that the present cabinet is the largest and most expensive the country has ever had, six is not a great number. He should signal behind his back, not in front of himself.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There is the seventh.


Malcolm MacInnis: If there are six present I am going to make a statement for you gentlemen, and each one of you if you wish can get up and deny having anything to do with this. Nevertheless this statement is being made by me as a factual one. The house will recall the answers that opposition members received prior to the very secretive introduction of the flag resolution. Nobody was allowed to know what the flag resolution was going to contain. Nobody was allowed to know what the design was. It was a deep, dark secret which, as I said before, in my opinion was revealed to the Halifax members at least so that they could make these bold statements.
I say to the ministers of the crown who are present now that from the mouth of one of the ministers I heard him take exception to the choice of the three maple leaves and in taking exception to the three maple leaves flag, which was presented by the government a couple of days later, he also indicated what his personal choice was. In my opinion this was tantamount to a leak because the opposition was denied any indication of what the design of the flag would be before the resolution came before the house.


An hon. Member:: Start bailing your boat.


Malcolm MacInnis: I hear an interjection from a member representing Halifax. I hope that as a member of parliament he will declare his stand. At least the member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Kennedy) has a very good indication of where one of his constituents stands. I say that prior knowledge was made available to members of the Liberal party. I say that this knowledge was made available by a member of the government prior to the presentation of the resolution and in my opinion he revealed something that the Prime Minister was trying to hide.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What is the point?


Malcolm MacInnis: Oh, you want to know what the point is.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Let us get to it.


Robert Muir: Charlie McCarthy is at it again.
Canadian Flag


Malcolm MacInnis: I would have to put the
point in writing before the hon. member could understand it. He does not hear, he does not speak, he only reads. He has suddenly become the Liberal oracle on matters of order in the house. The day I see him stand up and make a speech in the house that has not been put down in writing either by himself or by somebody else, I will be greatly surprised. The hon. member took part in the debate 16 times yesterday and said nothing, and again on a number of occasions tonight and has still said nothing.


An hon. Member:: Still sitting on his brains.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If he would make a point I would sit on it.


Howard Russell MacEwan: We cannot do without you. You are the best straight man in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is an exchange of conversation occurring between members on both sides of the house. I do not believe this is a conducive to good order. I ask hon. members to co-operate with the member who has the floor and give him a chance to complete his remarks without interruption.


Malcolm MacInnis: Your request has been
denied already by members on that side of the house, Mr. Speaker. It is very difficult to keep order on that side of the house. You say there is a chain of conversation. There may be a chain elsewhere, but there are only broken links on that side.
A few minutes ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) took great delight in trying to imply something other than what was meant by my remarks. I point out to him that it is my opinion also that the Minister of Transport played a great part-it may have taken upwards of two weeks-in introducing the resolution in this form. He thought it would satisfy the premier of Newfoundland. However, the request of the premier of Newfoundland has been denied, whether or not he liked it. Again I say that in my opinion the Minister of Transport played no small part in bringing about this situation. It may have taken longer than two weeks, and he can correct me if I am wrong.
I should like to point out that this flag question was not outlined in the legislative program in the speech from the throne. However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) introduced this flag question before the national convention of the Royal Canadian Legion on a Sunday evening. This organization has endeavoured at all times to keep politics out

Canadian Flag
of its deliberations. Nevertheless the Prime Minister took before this convention a very definite and very delicate political question. There was a great deal of criticism with regard to this action. On another occasion I raised a question of privilege concerning a cartoon appearing in the Ottawa Citizen with regard to this particular convention, in which the Liberal members took a great deal of delight although it depicted all legionnaires as a group of alcoholics with the exception of the Prime Minister. A few days following that this same newspaper was referred to on another question of privilege. With the support of this kind of yellow journalism, the Liberal party has been putting across its proposed flag design. I cannot recall the date, and I stand to be corrected, but I believe this same Prime Minister said he would not turn his back on the red ensign. Today the red ensign has been deliberately torn down in favour of the three maple leaf flag. The red ensign does not even appear as the second choice.
The convention at Winnipeg indicated quite clearly to the Liberal party and the Prime Minister that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the veterans of this country with his choice of a flag. Who are the members of the Liberal party? I noticed that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) was somewhat irritated by certain remarks in this debate, and I put the question to him directly: Does he feel he is more qualified to decide on a Canadian flag than some of the veterans who have served under this flag or some of the families who have lost loved ones in the service of this country? Does he think he is qualified to stand in this House of Commons and pass judgment on what these people should recognize as the Canadian flag? Is he more qualified than a private, corporal, sergeant or officer in the Canadian services who fought under this flag? Does he consider he should have a choice in this matter while Canadian citizens, many of whom are vet-terans, are denied an opportunity to express their opinion on what the Canadian flag should be? Does the minister honestly feel he should deny this opportunity to citizens of this country while he stands in this house and follows the dictates of his Prime Minister? I almost said "his party", but that would have been a mistake because it has been indicated to me already by a highly placed cabinet minister of the government that he is not in favour of the three maple leaf flag. While expressing his opposition to the three

maple leaf flag, he indicated to me what his choice would be.
Now, here we have a highly placed minister of the crown who has clearly indicated his opposition to this maple leaf design. If the minister is present and wishes to deny it or if he sees these remarks in Hansard tomorrow and wishes to deny it, or if each minister wishes to get up I will take each and every minister off the hook in turn and then I will face the responsible minister with it. I will make the accusation in the house and tell him where and when he said it. I will tell the house what his alternative choice would be. I will remind the Prime Minister, then, that his cabinet is still divided on the choice of a flag. This information came to me from a highly placed cabinet minister. I say to the Minister of Forestry again, does he feel he is qualified to stand up in this house and vote on this issue when he denies the citizens across this country who are rightfully concerned the opportunity to express an opinion as to what the flag of this country should be?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Don't dignify him with an answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on some point of privilege?


Maurice Sauvé: I thought we had been elected in this parliament to take decisions. This is what the people who voted for us in our constituencies want us to do. The only thing we want is to vote, as members of parliament, and decide on this issue as soon as possible.


An hon. Member:: A free vote?


Maurice Sauvé: A free vote, yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You have a bureaucratic approach.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is 10.30.


Guy Favreau: I would suggest the hon. member be allowed to complete his speech, unless he has quite a bit more to say.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I suggest we call it 10.30.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


Malcolm MacInnis: Perhaps I could take this opportunity to raise a question of privilege and ask for the withdrawal of the last remark made by the interjector. He has said that the Minister of Forestry should not dignify me with an answer. I think that member should withdraw that particular

remark, considering the fact that I still have ten minutes to go.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I ask that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? I am afraid there is no opportunity at this time to consider questions of privilege or points of order. It is 10.30, and unless there is unanimous agreement amongst the members that we should continue after 10.30 I would suggest that the hon. member who has the floor, and who still has some time left, continue his remarks whenever this debate is resumed. If he wants to raise a point of privilege at that time, I think that would be the proper time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:


Gerald Augustine Regan: It is with a feeling of true humility that I attempt to follow the previous speaker but I will try to show in the course of my remarks the same fine spirit of moderation and co-operation as he displayed.
My question to the Minister of Transport this afternoon dealt with the provision of a direct air service between Nova Scotia and Bermuda, with connecting flights to the rest of the Caribbean and other parts of the commonwealth in that hemisphere.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget the Virgins.


Gerald Augustine Regan: My question had reference to the fact that in Nova Scotia in particular, and indeed in the other Atlantic provinces, there has been a long and historic trade relationship and much intercourse with these areas. The volume of trade over the years has been impressive and as a consequence, my people have had occasion to go back and forth quite frequently. It is most unjust, therefore, that maritimers wishing to fly to Bermuda and on to the Bahamas and other points in the Caribbean should have to travel by way of Montreal and Toronto. Not only have we had this close relationship for many years but we have a geographic proximity to this area which is not enjoyed by the rest of Canada.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
We know Air Canada has been considering the introduction of a service from the Halifax international airport to Bermuda and I also know that when consideration is being given to this matter much is made of the volume of business which could be expected from such a service in the early years. I wish to suggest that when the officials of Air Canada are considering this matter they should bear in mind that the amount of traffic which they estimated for the Toronto-Nassau route turned out to be way below what was actually realized and that it has grown year by year. I think the service from Halifax would pay its way almost from the start, particularly if aircraft such as the Vanguard, which can also carry freight, were used. Such a service would enable lobsters from Nova Scotia, and possibly from other maritime provinces, to find a ready market in Bermuda or elsewhere in the West Indies.
We are told that one of the obstacles to the integration of such a service is that the British would demand reciprocity. In other words, they would have the right to put in a flight to some other part of Canada. I think the disadvantages of this are overestimated. Even if the British were to be given a flight to some other part of this country, the route from Halifax to Bermuda would soon become a popular and profitable route for Air Canada. If Air Canada is not interested in such a proposition, I suggest that Canadian Pacific Airlines or Eastern Provincial Airlines or B.O.A.C. might well be interested. It is not good enough that the people of the maritime provinces who wish to travel to Bermuda or to the Bahamas should have to go by way of Montreal or Toronto.
We will listen with great interest to the answer which the minister gives on this subject. The time has come when this service should be inaugurated. Indeed, it is long past. As a matter of fact we hope the minister will be able to announce that it will be brought into being in time for people from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island to use it during the coming winter, instead of being obliged to travel extra miles and spend extra dollars routing around Montreal.


An hon. Member:: Rooting around Montreal?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I can assure the minister that if this service is provided in the immediate future it will prove more remunerative to Air Canada or to whichever carrier undertakes it than could possibly be envisaged.
7108	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am glad the hon. gentleman was not allowed to receive the somewhat laconic answer I would have been obliged to have given him, under our rules, earlier today. It is hard for many people to understand why a service which would obviously be so beneficial should not be provided.
I agree with the hon. gentleman that the service would pay almost from the outset, particularly if, as he suggested, an aircraft such as the Vanguard were used which could carry a considerable quantity of freight. In that case there might be a great deal of two-way traffic.
There is, however, one problem, and it is a problem which is under active consideration by the air transport board at the present time. That is the problem of the bilateral agreement we have with the United Kingdom. Bermuda is a dependency of the United Kingdom, and we would have to renegotiate our arrangements with the United Kingdom; and they, not unlike us in this respect, are anxious to make as good a bargain for themselves as they can. There is not any doubt that they would ask for, and would be justified in asking for, some concession from us in regard to their services to Canada.
I do not set this up as an insuperable obstacle, but it is the kind of consideration that has to be taken into account in matters of this kind. I know that T.C.A.-in fact I know it very well, because I asked them to do it-are at the present time giving active consideration to the amount of traffic they can reasonably expect on this service, and they have not reached any final view about this; at least, they had not reached any final view

the last time I inquired, which was two or three weeks ago. But I would think, Mr. Speaker, there would not be any doubt that before very long this service would be a very profitable one.
I would hope, of course, it would not be just from Halifax but would be a continuous flight from St. John's-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: where in fact they could get at least as many passengers as they could from Halifax. The service would of course only be satisfactory if it were well integrated with the service from Canada to the Caribbean. That would possibly result in some of the traffic, instead of going direct from Montreal or Toronto being diverted via Halifax, which would give some of these people in central Canada a broader conception of their country than some of us feel they have at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that I have to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to special order of the house of August 17 last, this house stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
It being forty minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, August 21, 1964