1964-09-08

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Richard.

Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report on the recent meeting of the Canada-Japan ministerial committee from which my colleagues and I returned last evening, and to table the final communique of the meeting.
The establishment of this ministerial committee was agreed upon in 1961 at the time of Prime Minister Ikeda's visit to Ottawa. This third meeting took place in the foreign ministry in Tokyo on September 4 and 5.
Japan was represented by the ministers of foreign affairs, finance, agriculture and forestry, and international trade and industry; by the director of the economic planning agency, and by Mr. Hisanaga Shimazu, the new ambassador to Canada. The ministers of finance, trade and commerce, fisheries, myself and the Canadian ambassador to Japan, Mr. Bower, formed the Canadian delegation.
Tnis was a useful meeting. We made progress, I believe, in mutual understanding. The ministerial committee is not a negotiating body. It provides a forum in which ministers from the two countries can exchange views on relations between Canada and Japan and on international problems. We now understand better the Japanese point of view on many questions, and I think they better understand ours.
We found that Canada and Japan have to almost all situations a common approach based on common beliefs in freedom, justice and the desirability of measures to promote world prosperity. We noted the numerous occasions on which our delegations have worked together at the United Nations, particularly in the promotion of the treaty to
suspend nuclear testing. Japan shares with Canada the belief that the United Nations remains the main hope for the promotion of peace in the world, and the determination that the organization should be strengthened and its finances assured. We engaged as well in discussions on the role of the United Nations in peace keeping operations.
The committee had an interesting exchange of views on the various political situations in Asia. The Japanese, like us, are concerned over the Indonesian conflict with Malaysia and share our hope that the dispute will be settled by peaceful means in accordance with the charter of the United Nations. The committee agreed as well on the urgent necessity of restoring stability and of improving the well being of the Vietnamese and the other Indochinese peoples. We found that, like ourselves, the Japanese were giving careful thought to the problem of communist China. In this and many other fields we are resolved to continue to work together in close consultation, convinced that Canada and Japan as neighbouring countries across the Pacific have a consequential role to play in the promotion of stability and in the economic development of the Asian and Pacific regions.
We reviewed the current economic position and prospects for the two economies. Canadian ministers were much impressed by the determination and purpose with which the government and people of Japan are pursuing their policies of modernization and economic growth. There is every reason to believe that Canadian expoits to Japan, which have risen so rapidly in recent years, will continue to expand at a good rate as a result both of expansion of the Japanese economy and further trade liberalization.
We discussed in some detail the various quantitative restrictions and other Japanese obstacles to trade which still limit sales of Canadian goods to Japan. We expressed our expectation of early progress in liberalizing remaining Japanese restrictions and of important and meaningful negotiations between Japan and Canada in the course of the current Kennedy round of trade and tariff negotiations.
The Japanese ministers drew attention to the imbalance of trade with Canada and to

Canada-Japan Ministerial Meeting the inhibition of their sales to Canada represented by the restraints they observe on exports of certain of their products to this country to avoid disruption of our market. Canadian ministers noted that nearly all Canadian exports to Japan are essential foodstuffs or necessary industrial material, which provide the sinews of Japanese economic strength. On the other hand, most Japanese exports are manufactures and directly competitive with Canadian production. In the circumstances a trade imbalance is not unnatural.
Both sides were agreed on the desirability of an expansion of trade in both directions. It was noted that there was a variety of opportunities for the further diversification of Japanese sales to Canada. In this regard a high level Japanese economic mission will be visiting Canada in October.
Our discussions led to an improved understanding of the problem of voluntary restraints as seen from the two sides. Canadian ministers noted in this regard that no other highly industrialized country extends more liberal treatment than does Canada to Japanese imports. The communique records our agreement that recourse to such restraints should be kept to a minimum and that necessary consultations in this regard should be expeditious and based on mutual understanding.
We had an excellent exchange of views about international economic matters, including the status of the Kennedy round, international liquidity, the trade and development problems of the less advanced countries and east-west trade. In all these important matters there was a remarkable and gratifying similarity of interest and outlook. We found ourselves in full agreement on the objectives of trade liberalization to be pursued through the Kennedy round and expressed determination to do our respective parts to make the negotiations a success. Ministers specifically agreed to maintain close co-operation between their respective delegations throughout these important negotiations.
There was useful discussion of fisheries matters. We considered the problems facing the meeting of the parties to the north Pacific convention which opens here in Ottawa tomorrow. As a result we are hopeful that a formula will be found which will adequately reflect the interests of the three countries and result in the maintenance and development of the vital fisheries resources of the north Pacific. Other fisheries questions


were considered, including the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act of Canada. I am satisfied that as an outcome of our discussions the extent of fisheries co-operation between Canada and Japan has been enlarged and will be intensified in the years to come.
We renewed our invitation to Japan to participate in Expo '67, and we trust that a decision will soon be taken to permit a worthy representation in Montreal of the traditional culture and modern accomplishments of our Pacific neighbour.
The Minister of Finance took advantage of his visit to Japan to sign on behalf of Canada an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. This agreement will be submitted to the house and to the Japanese Diet for approval before ratification.
I signed on behalf of Canada an exchange of notes covering the mutual waiver of certain visa requirements between the two countries.
In a different field we noted the progress made in the development of communication satellites, an area which offers the prospect of extensive future co-operation between our two countries.
I would like to express my gratitude for the conversations I was privileged to have with the Japanese prime minister. Mr. Ikeda added his personal views on many subjects, and I was particularly impressed with his qualities of statesmanship and his understanding of the international scene.
I wish to mention the all too brief visit the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I were able to make to the city of Hiroshima. We were deeply moved. The indelible message of Hiroshima cannot be adequately expressed in words. It must never be forgotten, even though a fine new city all but covers the scars.
Japan, after the United States and Great Britain, is Canada's most important trading partner, and these ministerial meetings have provided a valuable opportunity for developing closer relations with this great Pacific nation as a neighbour and a friend.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the summary given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the ministerial meetings in Japan does reveal one continuing fact, namely the close relationship between the Japanese and the Canadian peoples. The minister mentioned the visit to Hiroshima, a visit that

could result only in a greater determination that never again shall there be resort to nuclear arms. It shows the utter devastation that results from the use of an instrument which, while a tremendous power for good, also represents the sword of potential destruction.
As to the references by the minister to the Prime Minister of Japan, may I say that anyone who has met with Mr. Ikeda cannot be other than greatly impressed not only by his knowledge of international affairs, to which the minister alluded, but as well by the wealth of friendship which he shows in everything he says and does in relation to Canada.
As to what took place, I think the house will be disappointed that it has not received some concrete information. Amidst a mass of generalities and grandiloquent prose, all that emerges is that these meetings are beneficial; and they are. But what action was determined upon is left to the imagination.
In our trading relations with Japan the imbalance of trade is a matter that has continued throughout the years. I do not forget that when we were in office the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, on more than one occasion expressed his great concern respecting our trade imbalance with Japan. I recall one time in particular, on February 23, 1962, when he asked whether the Japanese authorities were "becoming embittered by the efforts of the federal government to keep a tight lid on exports from their country to Canada, despite a continuing increase in Canadian sales to Japan". The view of the Liberal party of that day, if that question meant what it apparently did, was that we should not endeavour, by securing mutual quotas, to prevent the dumping or the export to Canada of products in the production which Canadians could not compete. However, since the present government has come into office it has generally followed the course of the previous government despite the protestations to the contrary in the past.
Sir, all of us in this house recognize that Japan, who only a few short years ago was a major enemy, has in the intervening comparatively few years since the end of the war become an exponent of democracy, a country which practises democracy and whose watchwords are freedom and liberty, having a desire to walk side by side with the free nations in maintaining freedom in all parts of the world as well as at all times standing firmly against the onrush of communism.
Canada-Japan Ministerial Meeting Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):
Mr. Speaker, members in all parts of the house will welcome the return of the delegation of Canadian ministers from their visit to Tokyo, and we are glad to have the report today from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think it is encouraging to know that representatives of the Canadian government can sit down with the cabinet ministers of Japan, and that a nation with which a few years ago we were at war should now be willing to agree that the various international differences that affect the world must be worked out within the charter of the United Nations. I think we can now confidently hope that our days of difference with Japan are behind us, and that before us stretches a new vista of peaceful co-operation.
I was particularly impressed with the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the liberalization of trade between Canada and Japan. The minister spoke in most optimistic terms. However, this statement is hardly in accord with that made by the Minister of Finance according to a Tokyo report, which says:
Finance Minister Walter Gordon of Canada said yesterday his government will not tolerate damage to well established Canadian industries by unrestrained imports on low cost Japanese goods.
The minister went on to say:
This year these restraints apply mostly to textiles, footwear and tableware and make up only one quarter of Japan's total exports to Canada of $150 million.
Then the report goes on to say that no agreement was reached on the issue of Japanese worsteds, and it points out that the Japanese government are not satisfied that Canadian industry is being hurt by the import of Japanese worsteds into this country.
I think we must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that Japan offers a great market for Canada, particularly for western Canada, and it is very important to our future economic development. We must also recognize that Japan buys from us a great deal more than we buy from her, and that if this trade is to continue we must open up avenues by which Japan can sell her goods in Canada. This might have to be a gradual adjustment of present voluntary restrictions, but it must be definite and must not merely consist of platitudes. I hope before long we will have some definitive statement from the government as to how much this liberalization of trade is to be a reality and how much of it is to be a myth.
There is one other thing I should like to say, that the minister's statement with reference to Hiroshima I am sure impressed all of

Canada-Japan Ministerial Meeting us. I think it is not only important that we say it will never be forgotten; I think we must also resolve that it will never be repeated.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we join in welcoming the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other members of the delegation who have returned from their journey to Japan. I believe we have a mutual feeling of appreciation for the abbreviated but still comprehensive report the minister has made to us in respect of the negotiations and actions taken in Japan at this ministerial conference.
It is significant that this particular conference should have taken place as it did, just prior to the Olympic games which will shortly begin in Japan. I think both serve to remind us of that ever-narrowing world which brings us all, nation and nation, citizen and citizen, closer together.
References to Hiroshima that have already been made, are something that strike close to the hearts of all peace-loving people and reminds us all of the awfulness of the age in which we live, should those scientific inventions that have been brought to reality be used for purposes other than peaceful development.
It is discouraging that in his remarks the minister had to mention the problem that exists today between our fellow commonwealth nations, Malaysia and Indonesia, and that the threat of war still hangs heavy in many parts of the world.
Obviously the bulk of the discussions that took place had to do with trade. The minister's remarks reminded us very clearly that trade is a two-way street, and that we cannot expect to sell unless we are likewise willing to buy. We in the west are particularly interested in the potential of trade with Japan. Within these few days while this conference has been taking place a group of Japanese industrialists have been investigating the potentials with respect to the coal necessary to feed the furnaces of Japan, in my own constituency. It is true that we have a tremendous potential in trade with Japan, but this will not come to pass unless the talks which have just taken place are extended so they become mutually satisfactory arrangements.
Certainly there is something most commendable in the fact that two countries such as Japan and Canada can sit down at the level which these talks took place and discuss these problems, and then arrive at voluntary

restraints upon each other's policies, in an effort to assist each other, as they at the same time seek to ease those burdens that each nation has relating to this problem of trade. It is noted also that the minister mentioned the fisheries problems, and we know these are urgent. We are pleased that this subject has been discussed as well.
It is not necessary to go into great detail at this time, Mr. Speaker, except to say again that I think it is encouraging to find negotiations of this type taking place at this level which can also bring about such courtesies and convenient arrangements regarding visas and taxation which are to the mutual advantage of the citizens of both nations.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this report and look forward to more details of the discussions, and the opportunity for debate at a later date in the house.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the statement just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was certainly most interesting. The members of this house and the Canadian people will readily appreciate that, besides being one of the largest markets for Canadian products, Japan can also supply us with items that are not produced here.
We export goods and industrial equipment to Japan and, in so doing, we find that in addition to assisting that country, we are also helping Canadian producers. The minister is convinced that Japan represents one of the best foreign outlets in the world for our export products.
One point on which I quite agree with the minister is this. I much prefer seeing him do business with Japan than with the communist countries of the world. I doubt that Japan will use Canadian products to try through economic means to win the world over to a communist ideology. The Japanese respect the human being, just as we do here in Canada, and I feel that we must do everything that is humanly possible to improve relations between our country and Japan.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat that ahead of the Japanese market or any other market throughout the world, there is a domestic market which is not satisfied and I am anxious to see the day when the members of the cabinet, led by the Prime Minister, will propose to us solutions or means to

satisfy the domestic market first, that is the Canadian consumers, the Canadian unemployed, in short the Canadian families which also need food and perhaps industrial machinery on the eastern farms.
For instance, we are told that Japan is improving greatly, that Hiroshima was built following its destruction, and so on. However, we are not being told about the number of unemployed in Japan. Perhaps there are not any? If so, why are we not given the reasons for it, so that we could adopt the same methods in Canada and improve the living conditions of Canadians?
It seems to me that it is high time for the ministers, who travel throughout the world, to submit to us concrete and objective solutions which would set our own house in order. We could then bring this to bear on our relations with neighbouring countries.


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I ask permission of the house to table a copy of the communique issued following the meeting of the commonwealth economic consultative council held in Kuala Lumpur on September 1 and 2, which the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance and I attended as representatives of the Canadian government.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister permission to table the communique?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: On the way to Kuala Lumpur we paid short visits to Hong Kong and Singapore, meeting local government officials and businessmen interested in trade with Canada. While in Hong Kong we had the opportunity of discussions with representatives of the China Resources Company which, as hon. members are aware, has been buying substantial quantities of wheat from the Canadian wheat board on behalf of mainland China.
In Hong Kong, in Singapore, in Kuala Lumpur and later in Tokyo we were enormously impressed by the high rate of economic activity. Everywhere one looked factories were being erected, roads were being built, apartment houses were rising. There can be no doubt that these Pacific countries are on the march and have great potential as markets for Canadian products.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The commonwealth economic consultative council met in Kuala Lumpur on the first anniversary of the founding of Malaysia. We were happy to join in the celebrations. I regret to say that the celebrations were marred by less happy events, and I draw attention to the text of the communique in which the ministers from all the 18 independent commonwealth countries joined in recalling the assurance given by the commonwealth prime ministers of their sympathy and support of Malaysia's efforts to preserve its sovereign independence and integrity and to achieve a peaceful and honourable settlement of its current differences with its neighbours.
The discussions at Kuala Lumpur were notable for their emphasis upon the problems of the developing countries, both within and without the commonwealth. We were happy to be able to say that Canada is stepping up the level and quality of our external aid, particularly in the field of education, and that the government of Canada supports strongly the international efforts that are being made to improve the trading position of the developing countries.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister if he has had brought to his attention a broadcast over the C.B.C. by Brigadier Michael Wardell regarding the prospective visit of Her Majesty the Queen. Has he, in the last few days, had any occasion to receive the views of Canadians in various parts of Canada who have suggested, as did Mr. Wardell, that in view of the continuing threats consideration should be given by the Prime Minister to recommending that the visit of Her Majesty should not take place as scheduled? Has the government given the fullest consideration to this matter, a problem that is really a difficult one and which will certainly exercise the mind of the Prime Minister, who is her adviser?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of listening to the broadcast to which my hon. friend referred. I thought the language used in portraying the situation in Canada which would confront Her Majesty when she visits this country was extravagant and indeed extreme. I do not agree that Her Majesty in coming to

Inquiries of the Ministry Canada, to use the words of Brigadier Ward-ell, is being subjected to a very awful risk. I have had no correspondence, Mr. Speaker, immediately before or since that broadcast along the lines of the views of Brigadier Wardell. The government is confident that the Queen will receive a warm welcome when she comes to Canada. I think it unfortunate that this visit should be interpreted in the terms used by the gentleman who made the broadcast to which my hon. friend referred.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding a press dispatch which says that external affairs minister Paul Martin expressed Canada's hope that an advance would be made during the forthcoming United Nations general assembly toward a solution of the problem of whether to admit communist China to the world organization. I should like to ask the minister if his statement in Tokyo indicates that the Canadian government, first, is going to promote the seating of mainland China in the United Nations or, second, will vote to seat mainland China in the event that this question comes before the United Nations at its coming session.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was natural that in discussions with the government of Japan, that great Asian country, this problem should be raised; and it was discussed very frankly. I stated to the government of Japan what I had already stated to this house on May 22.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister about a further statement which is attributed to him in the same dispatch, and which is in quotation marks.
We hope such an advance would be acceptable to the United States.
May I ask the minister whether Canadian policy is being held up until the United States indicates its willingness to have Canada take this course of action; and is United States acceptance a sine qua non of Canada adopting a policy for the seating of mainland China in the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will perhaps recall that in the detailed statement I made on May 22 I was discussing
[Mr. Pearson.!
a situation which could affect Formosa. I had suggested that consideration be given to preliminary steps for preserving the integrity of that particular country.
With regard to the other part of the question, it is not correct to say that foreign policy is dictated as the result of action taken by another power, no matter how great or friendly; but it is elementary, and I believe desirable, that in the formulation of policy one should take into account a number of considerations. Among those considerations in this instance must be the views of the friends with whom Canada is closely associated. The United States happens to be one of these countries, as is Japan.


Mr. Herridge:: The answer is yes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the house whether, as reported, consideration is being given to a meeting between himself and President Johnson at some point on the Pacific coast in the immediate future? If so, what is the purport of such a meeting so close to the United States presidential election? May I ask further, is there any basis for the invitation, which I understand was received from President Johnson, beyond a ceremonial meeting relative to agreements that have some bearing on the Columbia river treaty?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the ratifications in respect of this very important treaty are to be exchanged on September 16. It is considered that it would be appropriate to signify this very important and happy conclusion to such a significant international convention in some way which would result in a meeting between the heads of the governments of the two countries. No final decision has yet been taken but I hope, Mr. Speaker, that such a meeting can be arranged; and I assure my hon. friend if it can be arranged it will not result in any intervention, direct or indirect, in any election in our two countries. I expect to be able to make an announcement on this matter within a day or so, but I repeat that the occasion would be strictly the exchange of ratifications on the happy conclusion of a very important treaty.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As
a supplementary question, does President Johnson wish to celebrate the ratification of this treaty because of its coming benefits to the United States, where arrangements have been made by the Tacoma city light and power company to purchase one eighth of the downstream benefits, provided as the result of storage in Canada, for $65 million? On the basis of this, Canadian downstream benefits from the Columbia will be sold in the United States for a total of $520 million.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this government is equally happy to celebrate the conclusion of this international treaty which will confer such great benefits on Canada.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that for the past 10 days there has been little or no word of negotiations relating to the Cyprus crisis, can the minister give us any idea of recent developments there, particularly as the days are numbered as far as the present arrangements are concerned for peace keeping operations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the secretary general will be making a report to the security council within the course of the next week, following which there will be a meeting of the security council, when future policy will be decided.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, last Monday a question was asked of the Minister of Justice as to whether those who participated in the attempted arms theft in Montreal, which resulted in the homicide of the store proprietor, were members of the F.L.Q. At that time the minister declined to give any information. Since then the F.L.Q., in a communication that it sent out to various people, admitted its participation in the robbery and homicide in question. Is the minister now in a position to make a statement regarding the involvement of the F.L.Q. and the degree
Inquiries of the Ministry to which the F.L.Q. in recent weeks has strengthened its numbers?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the persons who are alleged to have been connected directly or by way of concert or conspiracy with the matter just referred to by the right hon. gentleman are concerned, since last Monday some development has taken place and there has been the actual laying of charges against them. I believe that until such charges are disposed of, any comment as to the particular activities of any of the individuals concerned or as to the possible motives which may have animated them would be out of order on my part; and I know the right hon. gentleman will agree that so far as I am concerned for the moment, and for the reasons I have just stated, I am barred by both ethics and custom from commenting further.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to argue that. There is a case before the courts and the matter is sub judice, but the minister would not be barred from answering the other important part of the question, which is the material part. What is the potential strength of the F.L.Q. as estimated by the law officers of the crown or the police officers? Can't he make a statement in that connection?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give a statement to the house on that particular aspect of the matter.


Mr. Churchill:: Why not?


Guy Favreau: For two reasons, or at least one. There are police groups other than the R.C.M.P. interested in this matter, and second there is not only the interest of the federal government involved but also of other governments. Third, any disclosure of precise information in this respect would be tantamount to laying out information in the open which it would not be in the public interest to disclose.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not making very much progress in the answers I am getting. I ask the minister, in view of the threats that have been made by members of this organization respecting the prospective visit of Her Majesty the Queen, is it not of great importance that the country should know the degree to which the F.L.Q. is merely a small minority and not representative of general thinking?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have my own personal opinion as to this and it would not
7728	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry be proper for me to state it, but in so far as the actual facts gathered and their disclosure are concerned, I must maintain the same stand as I have just taken and I do not believe that it would be in the public interest-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why not?


Guy Favreau: -to refer to this matter further, especially in connection with the very solemn occasion which will be soon taking place and about which I believe questions, like the ones which have been put both to the Prime Minister and myself, are certainly not in the best interests of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -I want the assurance that Her Majesty is going to be fully protected and that there is no danger to her.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I won't be brushed off by a supercilious statement by the Minister of Justice in that regard, trying to place responsibility over here for his failure to get after the F.L.Q. as he should.


Guy Favreau: It would have been much easier to have asked at the beginning whether the government was ready or willing to give that assurance, or desirous of doing so. It has already been given, and it is implied in all the acts of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since inquiries are being made about the F.L.Q. in the province of Quebec and about its membership, and that, according to press reports, a special bullet-proof armoured car will be used in Quebec city, I ask the Minister of Justice whether it would not be possible to give as much malicious publicity to an incident which happened in Toronto last night? Were the necessary steps taken to prevent young people from causing trouble in that city when the Beatles arrived? Therefore, I ask if the Beatles are also controlled these days, in order to prevent the Queen from coming to Canada?



CONFERENCE BETWEEN JUSTICE MINISTER AND QUEBEC ATTORNEY GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
Can the minister tell us whether he has been invited by the new solicitor general of the province of Quebec to discuss crime prevention with him?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I did not have that honour.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temiscamin-gue):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell us whether certain judges who come under his jurisdiction such as the judges of the superior court have been called to a meeting by the new solicitor general?


Guy Favreau: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berfhier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
Has the Minister of Justice discussed with the new solicitor general of the province of Quebec certain future reforms concerning the parole of prisoners now being held at St. Vincent de Paul or in other Quebec penitentiaries?


Guy Favreau: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



HAL BANKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganfic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the Minister of Justice a question which is likely to clarify a little the situation as regards Mr. Hal Banks and what he has been up to recently. Does the minister intend to establish a royal commission in order to clear up certain questions raised by members of this house as well as by the population?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say that up to now that solution has not been considered.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Last Friday the right hon. gentleman indicated that he would be willing to call, or at least participate in, a meeting of the leaders of all parties in an attempt to find some solution to the disposition of the flag resolution currently before the house. I should like to ask the Prime Minister now whether he has received any indication from the Leader of the Opposition that such a leaders' meeting could be useful.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the Prime Minister given any indication that he will depart from his stubborn attitude-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -respecting the suggestion that a committee be set up of 15 members to decide this matter by a majority, when he would have seven members and no doubt control, by their thinking, the other three members?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am very glad the hon. member asked me that question. I am also very glad indeed that at the meetings of the leaders which have been held there were four others present. I think it would be accepted by all those present that at these meetings the adjustments of position made by the government were not met in any respect by the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it not the Leader of the Opposition who suggested in the first place the setting up of a committee to get this matter out of the House of Commons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. The suggestion that a committee be set up was made by the leader of the New Democratic party. It was accepted by me as leader of the government and rejected by the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege-not that it really matters, because the record speaks-that is completely false in every particular. What the Prime Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry did say was that he would accept a committee on his terms and on no others.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege, and to keep the record straight, I ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam whether I did not accept the proposal on his terms, and whether those terms were not rejected by the Leader of the Opposition.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I attended the meeting of the five party leaders. The head of the government and the leaders of the three minority parties in the house have even been accused of collusion. At every meeting, and I say it before the whole house, there is only one who raised objections and showed deliberate obstinancy, at every one of those meetings between party leaders, and it is the leader of the official opposition.
So, today, since I rose on a question of privilege, let us stop monkeying with the flag question, and if the Leader of the Opposition is capable of showing good will and good faith, let us agree to take a majority vote in the house on the flag issue.


John George Diefenbaker: The grand alliance between the Creditistes and the Liberals.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On
the question of privilege which has been raised, I do not wish to get into a discussion of this matter because I intend to speak in the flag debate and may be anticipating what I have to say. But I should like to point out, in order to keep the record clear, that the party leaders, as demonstrated by the statements they made in this house on August 21, were divided. Four party leaders were agreeable to the setting up of a committee with the proviso that the report of such a committee should be debated for a limited period of time. The Leader of the Opposition took the position that he could not agree to any such limitation. This was the only point of difference.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Now that we have had a long week end and many members have had an opportunity to visit their constituencies, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider calling a leaders' meeting immediately after the caucuses tomorrow, when perhaps some of the sentiments of those attending will have been passed on to their leaders.


John George Diefenbaker: You speak with authority.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to consider that. But I hope if we have another meeting we can make some progress and that we shall not reach a deadlock or impasse, reference to which has been made this afternoon, thanks to the attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition toward this question.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister be willing to have a committee set up, the proviso being that in order to bring about a recommendation for a flag, 80 per cent to 90 per cent agreement should be arrived at?


Some hon. Members:: Veto.


John George Diefenbaker: You see? They know in advance how the committee will go. That is why they are opposed to it.
Would the right hon. gentleman agree to that? If he would agree to that we would be only too pleased to have the matter sent to a committee, as has been made perfectly clear. But we are not going to have a committee in which you start with the majority against us and sit-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in 90 per cent democracy.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: In view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, and the Prime Minister has opposed, the holding of a plebiscite, that is to say the consulting of the people, does the right hon. gentleman believe in democracy, period?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the words of Sir John A. Macdonald, a plebiscite is not necessarily democracy.



STATEMENT BY FINANCE MINISTER RESPECTING IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What are the well established Canadian industries to which the Minister of Finance referred, as reported from Tokyo, in these words-
The government will not tolerate damage to well established Canadian industries by unrestrained imports of low-cost Japanese goods.
What are these well established industries to which he refers?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): I think the industries referred to can possibly be found by a consideration of

those articles upon which voluntary restraints have been established by the Japanese government.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question supplemental to the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North. Arising out of those trade discussions, is there a possibility or any indication that the Japanese will be buying goods produced by Canadian manufacturers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, during the discussions with the Japanese government we urged very strongly, as reported by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the restrictions which now prevent the sale in Japan of Canadian manufactured goods should be relaxed as rapidly as possible.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A few moments ago the hon. member for Wellington South rose to ask a question, but he was not speaking from his own seat and therefore sat down. I believe he is the acting whip for the official opposition, and should be given the privilege of speaking from the whip's seat.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I appreciate the opportunity offered by the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, but my question has been asked.



ESTABLISHMENT OF PRICES FOR WHEAT AND COARSE GRAINS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have received many complaints from prairie farmers delivering new wheat to the elevators that they cannot get payment for it owing to the delay in having the price set. Could the minister tell the house when the price of wheat will be set, so that farmers can get payment for their wheat on delivery?


Mitchell William Sharp: May I take this question as notice and give a full answer tomorrow?



INQUIRY AS TO HOLDING OF BY-ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning a matter I first raised on August 18. In view of the fact that the constituency of Westmorland has now been unrepresented for 103 days or nearly four months, and the constituency of Waterloo South for 73 days; and in view of the fact that even if dates by the by-election were announced now it would be another 44 days before members could be elected, can the right hon. gentleman inform the house whether a decision has been reached as to the dates of these by-elections and if so, what are such dates?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. I think he asked me this question last week and I said I hoped to be in a position to answer it at the end of the week. I am almost certain I will be in a position to answer it tomorrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the house whether the contribution of the federal government under the winter works program in the province of Quebec has been fully paid for 1963-64?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was dealt with in the adjournment period last week. At that time it was my information that all outstanding accounts had been settled, but I will be glad to make inquiries and advise my hon. friend later.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that on July 6, which is more than three months ago, the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of Justice told the house that the government was at that time completing-I emphasize the word "completing"-the drafting of the bill respecting the Canada pension plan, can the minister say whether that drafting has now been completed and whether the resolution preceding the new bill will be on the order paper soon?
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I make it two months, not three, since July 6. However, I would like to tell the house that I expect to make a statement regarding the Canada pension plan shortly.


Mr. Knowles:: I accept the correction, Mr. Speaker. The minister is right; it is only two months since we were told it was almost completed. May I ask whether the bill will be ready in time for debate by this house in case the flag debate is either completed soon or set aside by the house?



SUGGESTED ELIMINATION OF TRANSPORTATION SUBSIDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, but in his absence may I direct it to the acting minister, or indeed the right hon. Prime Minister may wish to reply. It is prompted by a Canadian Press article emanating from the dominion-provincial coal convention at Lake Louise. My question has reference to subventions, and this is what appeared in the press over the week end:
William Whittaker, managing director of the coal operators' association of western Canada, Thursday called on coal and transportation industry officials to work to eliminate a federal subvention on coal transportation.
I may say that Mr. Whittaker is a member of the dominion coal board. It could be that he is misquoted or misrepresented, as sometimes happens to members of parliament. However, since Mr. Whittaker is a member of the dominion coal board, is the minister in a position to clarify the statement and assure the house that this is not the view of the federal government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement, but as my hon. friend reports it, it certainly does not reflect government policy. I will be glad to look into the matter at once.

Inquiries of the Ministry DRUGS



PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATION ON BODIES CONSIDERING PROFESSIONAL MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. My question is based on a resolution contained in a letter from the Canadian pharmaceutical association and directed to the Prime Minister under the date of August 31, 1964. Will the Prime Minister give the Canadian pharmaceutical association the assurance that their profession will be represented on committees, boards and commissions appointed in the future to consider matters directly or indirectly affecting the profession and/or the distribution of drugs to the people of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe I have received that letter, Mr. Speaker, and it is under consideration. I would prefer to look at the letter and see whether a reply has gone forward before answering my hon. friend's question.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of recent United States legislation to provide federal aid to nursing training; and if so, has the government considered the possibility of similar legislation for Canada?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no, and the answer to the second part of the question is no.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. On May 1 he said that a meeting was being convened by him in Moncton on May 20 at which all parties interested in the question of sealing operations would be represented. I would like to

ask the minister now whether there has been any success in the matter of preventing the hunting of seals with airplanes in the gulf of St. Lawrence. A great many organizations are interested in this matter, and I am wondering whether the regulations for 1965 will prohibit such action.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisler of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting referred to by the hon. member was held in Moncton on May 20 between officials of my department and representatives of the sealing industry. As a result of this meeting amendments to the existing regulations controlling sealing operations are now being drafted. As soon as they are completed another meeting will be held in order to discuss the amendments, and I am hopeful that those amendments will be ready within the next three or four weeks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it anticipated that these amendments will prohibit the use of airplanes and some of the other more barbarous practices that were carried on last year with respect to sealing?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am not in a position to state at this time that these amendments will entirely prohibit the use of helicopters or airplanes, but I am hopeful that they will control such operations.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is considering any special steps with regard to the recent sinking in the St. Lawrence, in view of the fact that it is almost a repetition of a similar tragedy that occurred last year at the same location?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, immediately the news of this tragic event was conveyed to the department we undertook what is the first step in these matters, namely we instituted an investigation of the facts. I believe this is now under way. As soon as that information can be gathered consideration will be given to what further steps should be taken. It is a singular and very sad coincidence that there should have been such a similarity between these two tragedies.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the one asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I wonder whether the minister could tell us whether following the inquiry into the tragic sinking of the Tritonica any special change in the routing or the various aid to navigation installations on the St. Lawrence was recommended and, if so, whether such recommendation has been followed by the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this is a question the answer to which I have to inform myself about before I would take the risk of giving an answer to the house.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps while I am on my feet I could be permitted to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Elgin in connection with the coastguard cutter Spume stationed in the lake Erie district.
I think the person who wrote the hon. gentleman must have been misinformed, because in fact when captains of rescue cutters receive information directly of any vessel in distress they can and are expected to proceed immediately to give any assistance possible without waiting for instructions from Trenton. All that is required of them is that they report to Trenton on their movements as quickly as possible so the people at Trenton will know at all times where they are situated.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, September 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Churchill.
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, if I may resume from where I left
Canadian Flag
off last Thursday evening when 10.30 was called, I was speaking in this debate for the first time since the flag resolution was brought before the house. I mentioned that the Canadian people are actually wondering now what is going on in the parliament of Canada. They are wondering, as I said last Thursday, whether we are a bunch of school kids who have lost our teacher. They do not seem to get any guidance whatever from this parliament at the moment, either on the flag issue or on government business, because the only business we are considering at the moment is the flag. I am under the impression that today we are further away from a Canadian flag than we ever were before. At least before we started this debate there seemed to me a mutual understanding that Canada wanted a flag, but at the stage we have now reached the people are wondering whether they should have a flag; parliament itself has not decided whether they should have a flag or whether the people should vote on it. The people are wondering whether this flag will unite Canada or divide it. At the moment things are moving in such direction that it is dividing Canada instead of uniting us.
We must ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker: What does this flag stand for. If it is going to stand for the ripping of Canada into parts, either regional, provincial or as a nation itself, we may as well not have a flag at all. We want a flag, as do all Canadians, which will not only stand for one group, one religion, one race or one nation, but for Canada; a flag to represent Canada among the other nations of the world as a united and strong nation. The flag should represent all of our historical background and proclaim our unity. It should stand for the social security which we have in Canada. It should stand for individual freedom and for the freedom of any association which exists within its boundaries.
Everyone is proud to look at a flag which stands for something; but what a disgrace it would be if when we looked at our Canadian flag we had to say it is that flag which has destroyed the nation itself. If we do not want that we must play our part as the responsible elected members of this nation, judge the situation as objectively as possible, and take part in this debate using the greatest wisdom we can deploy. If we do not do that it will be the downfall perhaps not only of the government but of confederation and the nation as it stands.
I might have used some very harsh words, Mr. Speaker, last Thursday night when I spoke of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canadian Flag
Diefenbaker) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson); but believe me I think they are true. It is up to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the government to take their responsibility as the two great leaders in this nation. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is regarded as just as important as the Prime Minister himself in the form of government we have. It is up to the Leader of the Opposition to bring forward any constructive objections which he has as to why why we should have or should not have such a flag. But it is not the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition to create any kind of obstruction in such a situation, whether good or bad. The role of the government as well as the opposition-any opposition-is to judge what is best for the Canadian nation, because we are here to represent Canadian interests, not our own.
We have had all kinds of speeches, Mr. Speaker, and some very good ones. They might not always have related to the subject as we would wish, and I myself sometimes stray in that regard; but we are all trying to have our say. I am wondering however, whether we are all trying to find a solution. It is not only a matter of speaking and then sitting down and saying we have done our job. We should speak in such a way that we might find a solution which will take this parliament out of the mess it is in today, a mess brought on by ourselves and nobody else.
The Canadian people were told in the last election campaign that the Liberal party would take a stand on a Canadian flag. Therefore it is up to us, as the responsible elected representatives of the people, to be their spokesmen. Let us carry out this task wisely and justly, and try to do it in such a way that we will save the nation, not destroy it. The Conservative members have objections to this flag resolution. They have brought in some amendments, but I have seen no reference to the flag on the amendments. It is now or never, Mr. Speaker; we cannot delay any longer. We desire unity but we will not accept unity with uniformity. We do not expect that any member of this house or Canadian citizen would accept unity on that basis. We will accept, however, unity with diversity, because that is the only democratic method to be followed. Every citizen of this country should have the opportunity of expressing an opinion in respect of this flag, and that is the only way
[Mr. Langlois.l
we can follow the majority rule principle. Such a selection by majority rule would be acceptable to everyone, provided it did not ignore the basic rights of any minority or individual.
As a young member of parliament looking at the situation which has developed in this house, Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed in public to admit that I am a member of parliament. The situation with which we are now faced is shameful. We have expressed our opinions. We have fought for what we believe is right. We believe that Canada has a history comparable to that of any other country in the world. Canadians can be proud of what has been obtained and attained through sacrifice, valour and hard work. Our ancestors should be commended for what they have accomplished in this regard, and it is up to us in this house to continue the progress of this nation, rather than to destroy it as we are doing through a continuation of this debate. I think everyone now has come to the realization that we have now reached the crossroads and must act quickly. We cannot permit ourselves to continue to be a group of asses listening to ourselves bray. We have done too much of this already. At this time we must find a solution acceptable to all parties in this house. Each member of each party in this House of Commons is an elected representative of the people, and each opinion must be respected.
It is not my intention to raise further objections or points which might rekindle the flame of debate, but we must soon settle on some plausible solution to the problems which now exist. The Liberal government has presented its idea in respect of the flag, that being the three maple leaf design embodied in the main motion. Other suggestions have been made, and we have all seen various proposed designs. I have one before me at the moment, prepared by Jean Dubuc, who is a descendant of the man who wrote the words of "O Canada". I do not know how close a relative he is, but one of his ancestors certainly did write those words.
Whether we accept the design proposed by the government, or another design, we must have a flag which will stand for national unity, and will be looked upon with pride by Canadians. There is nothing which tears my heart more, as well as the heart of anyone else in this house, or any Canadian citizen, than does the suggestion that we will need a special type of vehicle to protect the Queen on her visit to this country. I think we must begin to protect Canadians generally in view

of the situation that is now developing. Many people are beginning to tear out their hair because this flag debate continues without any indication of conclusion, and because all the time it continues it divides this country and whatever unity does exist. As long as we continue to beat around the bush here in this house, without coming to any plausible solution to the problem, we are going to further this division. We have now been debating this flag issue for 22 days, and talked about it as early as last spring, without any good result. As a matter of fact, I am now under the impression that we are further away from a solution than we have ever been, and if we continue to follow the course we have followed we will divide this House of Commons into groups, and this country into ethnic associations.
The United Nations, made up of representatives of almost every country in this world, was able to adopt a flag within a very short period of time. Why cannot we decide upon a flag in a similar fashion which will represent the two founding races of this country and those Canadians of other ethnic origin who have come to this country adopting its customs and rules, and who, I am sure, will adopt its flag when and if the Canadian government presents one that is acceptable and representative of unity? Let us put our political feelings aside while dealing with this issue. It is useless to attempt to save our own skins at the expense of national unity because our skins would not be worth much without a country.
A day or two ago I heard an hon. member state that debate is the living right of parliament. I admit that fact, but on this occasion it might well prove to be the death of our Canadian nation. We do desire a Canadian flag, but let us have one that will stand for unity. I am sure the Canadian economy has suffered and will suffer more because of the time lost by this parliament during the debate on this flag issue. This parliament is now behind in its normal work. We did not have a budget presented to the house for several years. We are now losing a great deal of time by discussing the type of flag Canada should adopt, and by the time we do come to some conclusion this nation will be divided and the flag will then be useless because it will stand for little or nothing.
I should like at this time, Mr. Speaker, to present possible solution to our problems, and outline my understanding of the situation. I think it is much easier for a small group of members, perhaps 15, to come to
Division
some agreement in respect of a flag design than it would be for the 265 members in this house. Each of the 265 members, in expressing individual and representative points of view, will tend to keep us apart just long enough to destroy whatever unity we now have. I think a small committee could work together discussing the situation objectively, and arrive at some plausible and acceptable solution upon which we could vote to accept or reject.
I do not intend to speak any longer on this flag issue because I feel that the sooner I conclude my remarks the sooner we will find an acceptable solution to our problems. I suggest that this house should adjourn this debate today for a period of 60 days, referring this resolution to a committee comprised of 15 members; seven from the Liberal party, five from the Conservative party, one from the New Democratic party, one from the Social Credit party and one from the Ralliement Creditiste. This 15 member committee could discuss the matter for 60 days starting from today. Then the resolution could be brought back to this house and debated for a period, let us say of six days, somewhat like the throne speech debate or the budget debate. There could be a limit of six days. Then there could be a vote. If it did not pass, nothing would be destroyed; we could go back on the flag debate. However in the meantime the house would have an opportunity of dealing with something else and taking care of the Canadian people. I believe the committee would have a better opportunity of finding a solution to this matter than we would have in this house.
I move therefore, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), that this debate do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, to register the strong-
est possible protest against the contempt shown to this house by keeping members waiting for 85 minutes-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -to suit the convenience of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the government. This is the most contemptuous disregard of the rights of parliament that I have witnessed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -and I protest against this arrogance, that was apparent the other night and has been intensified today. This is totally inexcusable conduct on the part of a prime minister and a government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the right hon. gentleman's feeling of frustration, when only 44 members of his party were here; but I am at a loss to understand his irritation at being delayed from attending what he himself used to refer to ironically as an egghead conference. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to give a ruling whether there is any question of privilege whatever involved in the point the right hon. gentleman has raised.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I answer the Prime Minister's-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -arrogance by saying I was very glad to stay here to see a government that so contemptibly interferes with the rights of parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think the vote which has taken place indicates quite clearly the concern of the house regarding prolonging the debate on the flag issue and the imperative need for our trying to find some solution to the stalemate in which parliament finds itself. This debate started on June 15 and it has continued since that time, with an interruption for several pieces of legislation. But it has gone on continuously for the past five weeks, with the exception of the one day each week which is set aside for the discussion of estimates. Now we are embarking on the sixth week of debating this matter.


An hon. Member:: Tell us something we don't know.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I hear someone from the Conservative party asking me to tell them something they don't know. I do not

know that I can tell them something they don't know, but I can tell them what I think an increasing number of people in this country know, namely that the reason for this prolonged debate is the fact that the Conservative party in this house seems to be determined to keep parliament from reaching a decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: We don't accept that at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this is rather significant. For five weeks we have been debating this question, and the major part of the time has been taken up by the Conservative party. They have constantly appealed to other people to participate in the debate, and the moment those other members do so they are heckled and interrupted by the hon. gentlemen who sit on my right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me it is a sign of weakness in one's defence when constantly he has to keep someone else from presenting his point of view. I had hoped, sitting through these five weeks of debate without taking any part, that after members had expressed their point of view we would be allowed to reach a decision; but last week it became increasingly apparent that the official opposition were going to keep moving innocuous subamendments in order to prevent not only the house reaching a decision on their amendment but to prevent other parties in this house moving amendments upon which the house could make a decision. I suggest that this is a negation of democratic government.
A great deal has been said by some speakers about the government seeking to ram a flag down their throats. I would point out in the first place that the present government is a minority government. The government has not a clear majority in the house and the French Canadian members have not a clear majority in the house. Therefore no flag can be rammed down people's throats unless the majority of the members are prepared to vote for it. I think the members should be given an opportunity to vote for it at a fairly early stage.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I have listened patiently for five weeks to the opinions expressed by the members of the official opposition against the maple leaf flag design, either that proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or the single maple leaf design which
Canadian Flag
we have indicated it is our intention to place before the house. I respect the views of those who have put up arguments, and I should like to take the three main lines of argument which have been used as to why some hon. members are against a maple leaf design.
The first is that they say this maple leaf design is a concession to Quebec.


Mr. Monteith:: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They have either said that themselves or have quoted other people who have said it, and said it in most intemperate and immoderate terms. Someone says no; well I am not going to weary the house, unless I am pressed to, by going over the speeches of hon. members. I have gone over them carefully each day and I can quote for hon. members chapter and verse the speeches which have been made saying specifically that this flag is a concession to Quebec; that this is something which the government is using to get votes in Quebec. The record is clear for anyone who wants to examine it, and if necessary I am prepared to take time, either now or later in the debate, to put all these quotes on Hansard; there are pages of them. Suffice it to say for the moment that I think this kind of argument is hurting national unity and if it is persisted in it will wreck confederation. And, may I say, it will wreck the Conservative party.
I would point out that there Eire no French symbols on the flag which has been proposed. There are no French symbols in the maple leaf design. French Canada has not asked for them because they are sufficiently mature to recognize that in this situation Canada must be concerned about the present and the future rather than being obsessed with the divisions of the past.
The second line of argument which has been presented is that by not having the union jack on the flag we are removing the Christian symbols. I should like to point out that the crosses in the union jack are not Christian symbols in the true sense of the word.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh yes, they are.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They represent battle banners which were used; St. George's cross was first used in the crusade when the kings, barons and knights of Christendom perpetrated murder, rapine and plunder in the name of Christianity; the flag of St. Andrew was first used by the Piets and the Scots in their wars against the Saxons; the cross of St. Patrick was on the banner of the Fitzpatricks when

Canadian Flag
they conquered Ireland, and very few Irishmen will be crying for the cross of St. Patrick. Certainly it has never been adopted as Ireland's flag.
Let us remember first of all that Christianity is not the only faith in Canada. There are people of Jewish faith, the Mohammedan faith and the Buddhist faith.


Mr. Bigg:: And the communist faith.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, I will leave that to my hon. friend.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Is that not true?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He can speak for some of his friends; I am speaking for mine at the moment. But I submit that in the flags which have been proposed-either the three maple leaf design, the single maple leaf design which we have been advancing, or the design proposed by A. Y. Jackson more than 50 years ago-you have blue bands which do have a religious significance because they are a constant reminder that our motto "From sea to sea" was based on the eighth verse of the 72nd psalm:
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
This design has a religious significance not peculiarly Christian but of general application to the Christian-Judean faiths-that the things of God should have priority in the lives of our people from one coast of Canada to another.
The third objection which has been taken to the maple leaf design is that it is removing the symbols of our British connections. All of us are proud of the fact, especially those of us of British origin, that Britain has played such an important role in Canadian history. We are convinced that this influence will live on in our democratic institutions. It will live most meaningfully if we make those institutions work, and work effectively. I submit that it is a sign of political immaturity to refuse to cut the apron strings and walk out on our own feet. It is still true to say:
Daughter am I in my mother's house;
But mistress in my own.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that those who keep talking about the union jack, the battle of Hastings and British history should forget that we cannot go back into the womb of the past. There comes a time when any independent nation must cut the umbilical cord and step out on its own. This debate, which has been going on now for all these weeks, reminds me of the discussions we heard 20 to 25 years ago, when a former

member for North Battleford, a man called Cameron R. McIntosh, used to bring in a resolution each year for a national flag for Canada. He proposed the red ensign, and I remember all the speeches which were made in favour of the union jack. In 1946, when the government of Mackenzie King passed an order in council saying that the red ensign should be flown on public buildings-


Alfred Dryden Hales: It was 1945.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, that is correct; September 1945-at that time I was associated with a provincial administration, and every year for many years delegations came to wait on the government to protest over the flag we were flying, the red ensign, and saying that by refusing to fly the union jack we were denying our connection with the motherland; that we were being false to the blood in our veins. All of the arguments that were used then against the red ensign are now being used for the red ensign.
I have no disrespect, Mr. Speaker, for the union jack. I would be the last person to be disrespectful to it because I was born under it. It is a great flag with a great tradition. But I did not come to Canada to build another little Britain, or little Scotland, or another little England. I came to this country to help build Canada, in which the British traditions of which I am so proud, along with the contributions and the cultures of other ethnic groups and races, could come together to enrich this new country. Therefore, if we are to have that kind of country, this flag must be a symbol of our hopes and aspirations for the future-namely, a united people who are seeking to establish a Canadian identity on this North American continent. I think I have made it clear that as far as I am concerned I have not been convinced by the arguments against the maple leaf design.
Let me turn now to the other side of the question. The government has manoeuvred itself into a political and parliamentary impasse. When I spoke during this debate on June 16 I made the statement that I thought the government had chosen the wrong time and the wrong method to introduce the flag question. We felt that, with all the legislative program before us, a matter like a flag ought not to be introduced at a time when it was almost certain to block the passage of that legislative program. We also felt there should have been some other method by which we could obtain a consensus about a flag, rather than putting a specific design to the House of Commons

where it was almost certain to become a bone of contention.
We in this party, or at least, the great majority of us, are prepared to support a maple leaf design, but I think it is equally apparent that the English speaking section of one of the major political parties is in apparent disagreement and has now embarked upon a policy of obstruction. I think we have to face that fact and have to deal with it. I think we have to begin by remembering that dealing with a flag issue is not the same as dealing with a legislative matter. If this were a matter of some important legislative significance, there are parliamentary means of bringing the matter to a decision. In respect of this question, even if we could force a decision, it would be a Pyrrhic decision. A flag adopted by Canada should represent the consensus, and should be launched with the general support of the vast majority of the Canadian people. It should be an instrument for forging unity rather than creating division, and no flag will accomplish that if it is conceived in controversy and born in bitterness. This would be equally true, in my opinion, if we were trying to force the red ensign through this house. I think therefore that in this situation the government has three courses left open to it. The first course is, it can dissolve this parliament and call an election. I hope members will believe me when I say I am not opposed to an election on this issue because I have any fear from the standpoint of this political party. I think we could do rather well in an election where the bankruptcy of statesmanship on the part of the two old line parties has become so apparent. I am not concerned about an election, I am concerned about Canada. I believe that this country would suffer irreparable damage, irrespective of the outcome of the election. I think any election on the flag issue would divide the country on racial grounds, which would split confederation, and even if confederation survived it would take a quarter of a century to heal the scars that would result.
Therefore, I say I think members in all parts of the house, or some of them at least, will agree that there should be no irresponsible action taken by either side of this house by any political party which would result in such a catastrophe.
The government has a second choice. It could force a decision by closure, or by a war of attrition. To my mind the former is unthinkable, particularly in respect of so emotionally charged a question as the flag issue. To launch a new flag for Canada by means
Canadian Flag
of a closure motion would mean launching a new flag with resentment and bitterness in the hearts of a very considerable section of the Canadian people. The latter course, a war of attrition, would mean that we would neglect a legislative program which ought to be dealt with, and dealt with speedily.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) made a statement on Thursday evening to the effect that no legislation should be passed, no estimates passed and no money voted to this government until this question was settled by referring it to the people. I do not know whether he was speaking for his party or only for himself, but if that is the course to be followed, then prolonging the debate by a war of attrition will mean that we will do little or nothing by way of constructive legislation at this session. If that attitude is going to be taken, and I have made it clear that I do not condone it, I think we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that we are either going to have no flag at all, or a flag at the price of bitterness and hard feelings, which is not in my opinion a good way to launch an emblem that is to fly proudly over this nation.
Therefore, the third solution, which is the only choice the government has left, is that the government must find some type of compromise out of this difficulty. I readily acknowledge to the Prime Minister that the government has made the major concessions, and almost the only concessions that have been made on this issue. The government has agreed to a free vote, so that an election is not hanging on the outcome.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is no point to the laughter of my friends in the Conservative ranks, because they continually asked for a free vote, and if they were doing so seriously they ought to be serious in appreciating the fact that this concession has been made.
The government has agreed that it was not wedded to any one design, and that it is up to this house in the final analysis to choose a design, providing it is a distinctive national flag which cannot be mistaken for the flag of any other country.
The Prime Minister agreed to the establishment of a committee, as did every other political leader except the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and to send this matter to that committee subject to the proviso that there be a time limit on the debate on the committee's report. The government has made some concessions, and I am suggesting now that in the present situation we must

Canadian Flag
be prepared to explore the situation further. I realize some will argue that if we do this we are knuckling under to blackmail from the official opposition. In the kind of stalemate in which we find ourselves we have to be prepared to make concessions in an attempt to find some common ground. After all, the government must accept responsibility for the fact that this matter is before us. They are the ones who introduced it, and they must have known when they introduced it that it would be a controversial matter, and would not go through the house easily. We really are in the position of trench warfare, in which both sides have dug in and every day which passes during this debate, they are digging in a little deeper. We are faced with a hopeless stalemate. The only hope lies in a major breakthrough so that the house can get some freedom of movement from which some positive decision can be made.
I want to suggest we try a compromise proposal. I suggest that we pick up where we left off in the statements that were made by the leaders of all the political parties in the house on Friday, August 21. I am not speaking of the suggestions that were made by the party leaders in their conferences. I am talking about statements that were made by the party leaders in this house on the order for motions on August 21. I suggest we pick up from there and see where we disagree, see if there is some loophole by which we can find common ground.
I am proposing briefly three things. One is, as was suggested, that a parliamentary committee composed of 15 members be established, seven from the government, five from the official opposition and one from each of the other political parties. I think such a committee ought to have the help of heraldic experts. This is my first suggestion.
The second suggestion is that the committee should report back to the house within 60 days. This time limit could be negotiated. If the Prime Minister would like it shorter or the Leader of the Opposition would like it longer, I think that matter could be negotiated and could be discussed in the party leaders' meeting. I think that in a matter as important as this, 15 days one way or the other is not going to make any difference. We have been able to get along for 100 years without a flag, so if by waiting 20 days more we can find an answer, let us not bother about that. I am suggesting, for negotiating purposes, 60 days.
The third suggestion is that when the committee's report is ready there should be an-

other meeting of the party leaders to determine the length of time that should be devoted in the house to a discussion of the committee's report. While I personally believe that there should be a time limit agreed upon in advance, I would be willing to defer this decision until after the committee's report is ready in order to reach agreement and set up the committee.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know all the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal. I know it would be much better if we could agree in advance as to how long this debate would take when the committee reported back. It has been suggested that if there were a certain percentage, it would be so long; for other percentages, it would be longer. I do not believe you are going to get agreement on that in advance. It seems to me there is much to be said for sending this matter to the committee, having the committee report back in 60 days and just before they report the party leaders could meet. If there were 12 members out of 15 in agreement on the report, then we should be able to arrange for a very short debate. If there were a severe difference of opinion, then it might not be so easy to get agreement about a time limit. Why not let us leave that question until we see how the committee gets along?
Now, let me try to anticipate the reactions to this proposal. I think the Leader of the Opposition should be willing to endorse the suggestion I am making because it falls in line, to some extent, with the proposals which he made in the house on August 21 as recorded at page 7112 of Hansard. Now, the Prime Minister would be more justified in having some reservations about accepting this proposal because he, like myself and the leader of the other political parties, has argued for a time limit to be set in advance, that is a time limit on the debate on the committee's report. Those of us who took that position on August 21 did so because we felt that if we did not have a time limit on the debate on the committee's report we could find ourselves, 60 days from now, just where we are today. This is the argument I put up in the house on August 21.
I want to argue now that by deferring the decision as to limiting the time of the debate, we would still be making some gains. We would not be as badly off as we are today. First of all, in the meantime, we would have been able to spend eight weeks on legislative work in the house. We would have been able to get some legislation passed. We would have been able to get on with the country's

business. I hear somebody say, "We might get holidays". I think the holiday time has gone; we are here to work. I thank my friends to the right for the only holidays we are likely to get. I think now we should get on with the country's business; that is what the people of Canada are demanding, get on with the business. Eight weeks from now, therefore, we would at least be this far ahead. We would have some legislation on the statute books. If this included the Canada pension plan, we would be very happy.
The second thing is that my proposals have this advantage. We have at least a reasonable prospect-I think a 50-50 prospect-that the committee might come up with a solution. The Leader of the Opposition has said publicly that he would be prepared to co-operate by selecting representatives from his party who have not taken an inflexible position on the flag issue. If he follows that course and the other parties follow a similar course of action, we might get a committee that would work out a solution. It would be worth a try. I know this, there is a better chance of 15 members trying to find a solution behind closed doors than there is for 265 members trying to find it in the glare of publicity. It might not work, but it is worth a chance. We have nothing to lose.
The third advantage of this proposal is that it would have demonstrated to the Canadian people that parliament is sufficiently flexible to meet a situation that calls for statesmanship. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, the real casualty in a cold war of attrition will be parliament itself. The responsibility for this lies with the two major political parties. It is often said, a little contemptuously sometimes, that the smaller parties are the reason we cannot get on with the business of this parliament; the smaller parties are the reason there is no efficiency in parliament. You cannot blame the three smaller parties in this instance. We did not initiate this issue and we have not prolonged this issue. We have been ready at all times to take a vote and bring this matter to a decision. It has been the two old line parties who have been like two old bulls in a pasture butting their heads together. They must accept the responsibility for the stalemate in which we find ourselves. We think that the time has come to end this cold war of attrition and seek a solution before we do irreparable damage to parliament and to confederation.
If I may just in closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the Prime Minister may feel he will be accused of beating a 20220-489
Canadian Flag
retreat if he accepts this proposal. I can understand that fear because of some of the jibes that have been hurled at him from time to time. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it takes a man of stature to make a concession in the interests of national unity; any pipsqueak can stubbornly cling to a position long after it is untenable. I think the Prime Minister of this country can, and I think he will demonstrate the kind of stature that is necessary to give this country the leadership it needs in this difficult time.
If a compromise is reached by all parties along the lines I have suggested, it will not be a decision taken solely by the Prime Minister. On August 21 I, and the leaders of other groups, except the Leader of the Opposition, argued for having a time limit on the debate of the committee's report. I am prepared to defer the decision about a time limit until after the committee's report is ready. If anyone wants to say I am retreating, he may do so. I am not afraid of being accused of backing down. I am concerned not so much with chalking up debating points as I am concerned with finding a solution without sacrifice of principle, and I do not believe it is beyond the ingenuity of this house to work out a compromise and an accommodation.
Therefore I am urging the Prime Minister to consider calling a meeting of the party leaders if there is any indication that the proposal I have outlined is acceptable to the other parties as a starting point for negotiations. The reason I did not get up the other day when the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) urged the Prime Minister to call another meeting is that unless there is some change of attitude, unless there is some new proposal to be considered I do not see any value in such a meeting. But if the various leaders feel the suggestion I have made about a committee, with a 60 day limitation, with the question of the limit of debate on its report to be left until the report is ready-if they feel this offers some basis for discussion, then I would urge the Prime Minister to call such a meeting.
After all, Mr. Speaker, the leaders of this house are the Prime Minister of Canada and a former prime minister of Canada. In the final analysis the solution depends on their willingness to co-operate. When we are selecting a national symbol, a flag that is to be the emblem of Canada, it must have the support of at least the major part of the two largest parties in the house, and it seems to me that the answer lies in finding some

Canadian Flag
common ground between these two gentlemen.
One hundred years ago Sir John A. Macdonald and George Brown laid aside their differences in order to bring Canadian confederation into birth. I am appealing to the two leaders of this house to follow the same course now in order to strengthen the bonds of confederation at a time when they are sorely strained. If they fail to respond then Canada will be the poorer, but if they succeed future generations will applaud them.
I say to both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed to every member of parliament, we have a great opportunity to put posterity in our debt and to so conduct ourselves that future generations will be able to say we matched the challenge of the troubled times in which we lived.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask the hon. member a question. In the event that substantial agreement could be reached in less time than 60 days, say in one week, two weeks or three weeks, does he mean that the committee could bring in its report prior to the time limit placed on it, in order that agreement be brought about more quickly?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the term I used was within 60 days. Maybe I should have used the term not later than 60 days. If the committee could reach a decision within two or three weeks, then certainly let it bring in its report, but if it cannot reach a decision within 60 days any further discussion by the committee would serve no useful purpose.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong the debate unduly because I think that the sorry spectacle the house is now giving to the Canadian people is not to the credit of our parliamentary system, far from it.
I support wholeheartedly what the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) has just said. That does not mean that I support all his political ideas, because I am at the very opposite of state socialism, and will be for a long time. However, I think it should be said that the spirit which permeates the speech the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has just made is truly Canadian. The hon. member was not speaking as an English speaking or a French speaking Canadian but as a Canadian. We hope that the day will come when each member of parliament will speak as a Canadian instead of trying, as the Conservatives have been

doing for two months, to create division, a division which increases day after day throughout Canada.
We saw the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) go to Winnipeg two months ago, to meet the Canadian Legion and face, I would not say animosity, but feelings which were really difficult and hard for a government and for a Prime Minister who had stated at that time that we ought to have a distinctive national flag.
I said then that the Prime Minister had acted like a head of state by meeting those people who, on a particular point, were strongly hostile. But when the Prime Minister came back to the house, he acted not like a head of state but like a diplomat. There is a difference between a diplomat and a head of state. I see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) is paying attention to what I am saying, because he does know the difference. A head of state must make decisions, while the diplomat endeavours to smooth things over and acts as a conciliator between the various groups.
The Prime Minister acted or tried to act like a diplomat by moving a resolution including two flags. That is the reason for the debate which has been going on.
If the Prime Minister had put before the house a resolution involving only one Canadian flag-not a French flag, or an English flag or the flag of the province of Quebec or the flag of British Columbia, but one flag for all Canada, with a Canadian symbol-I am positive that the flag would have been passed within five or six days. But the resolution gave rise to this debate which, at the very outset, led us to splitting the resolution. You made a ruling yourself, Mr. Speaker, saying that the resolution would be divided into A and B, that part A would concern the distinctive national flag, while part B would concern the union jack.
Here again, that is the point on which the Conservatives take their stand to boycott and filibuster from the beginning of the debate on this matter of a distinctive national flag. That is the basis of the Conservative arguments, which is unfortunate.
As I said before, and as the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam just stated, the impression has been created in Canada that the distinctive national flag is intended to please Quebec whereas the union jack is intented to please English speaking Canadians. Now, there is no question of a distinctive national flag being only designed to

please the province of Quebec because, if that was the case, I would ask the Prime Minister not to introduce it, because we already have one and we do not need a second one. One is enough. But we Quebeckers are ready, not as French Canadians but as Canadians, to approve any distinctive flag project for Canada, something which would belong to the ten Canadian provinces and not to one alone.
The Conservative filibuster has been reported in the press and been abundantly used on television and all mass media.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) is still accusing us today of hatching a plot with the Liberal party in order to ram a flag down the throat of the Canadian people.
At the time the leaders of the five parties met and the fact was mentioned that the Prime Minister was accepting a free vote in the house-and at this stage I may say that the Prime Minister made concession upon concession so as to reach an understanding and to give Canadians a distinctive national flag-the Leader of the Opposition stuck to his guns and refused to accept the concession and to agree to a settlement. We had gathered together and the free vote question was mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, nobody can make me believe that I am a member of the Liberal party. I am not; neither is the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Thompson) nor the leader of the New Democratic party. However, in the interest of national unity and for the good of Canadians in general, we were ready to end those fights which serve no purpose and to stop calling forth phantoms to scare the people or to divide even further the various groups which constitute the Canadian nation. We felt that a free vote would enable a majority of hon. members to express their opinion, that such a majority would naturally represent the majority of Canadian electors who have sent us to parliament to take decisions not to talk through our hats or filibuster as the Conservatives have been doing for the past two or three weeks.
At the time, we spoke of a majority decision but the Leader of the Opposition objected on the grounds that a majority of members would be imposing a distinctive national flag on a minority. On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition was proposing the red ensign with a fleur-de-lis in the bottom and a union jack at the top; he was ready to force his design on six million French Canadians in the province of Quebec. That was de-20220-489J
Canadian Flag
mocracy, but a majority vote in the house is not democracy according to the Leader of the Opposition, who is an experienced lawyer.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether he was honest and sincere when he proposed that compromise or that procedure on the flag issue.
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition was persistent in his ideas and refused to accept the proposals made by the Prime Minister or the other party leaders during these meetings. Mention was made of the establishment of a committee. The principle of such a committee has been recognized. However, a stipulation was immediately laid down: 15 members were to constitute this committee and an absolute majority was a requisite. The question was raised then as to what was considered an absolute majority. The reply was that 13 of the 15 members would have to have voted in favour of the distinctive national flag to be presented to the house, and then the debate could be limited to a few days only.
As my colleague from Megantic (Mr. Lan-glois) pointed out this afternoon, the 15 member committee was to include seven Liberals, five Conservatives one New Democrat, one Social Crediter and one member of the Ralliement Creditistes.
If the Leader of the Opposition decided to designate five members who were opposed to the distinctive national flag, without any tie with other nations or other countries, we would start again an endless debate.
That is why the right hon. Prime Minister could not accept such an offer and we could not accept it ourselves. It meant that there had to be unanimity or else the flag would not be accepted.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will bear the responsibility for this attitude and he will suffer the consequences, not only in one province, but throughout Canada.
As a matter of fact, we can see how the Canadian people react. I receive letters not only from the province of Quebec, but also from English speaking provinces such as Ontario and British Columbia. I have here a letter from 57 Milton street, Toronto:
Canadians are surely entitled to the best possible design, a simple, majestic, beautiful, striking and original flag, which will proudly take its place with other fine flags of the world, those of Switzerland, Norway, Hungary, France, England and other countries.
This person, Mr. Hughes, suggests-

One large, simple maple leaf on white with blue borders; one leaf-outlined in white-on a

Canadian Flag
light blue field; these are excellent. Or consider the enclosed-it won an honourable mention in the Weekend magazine national contest for professional artists. It is majestic: bleu, blanc, rouge.

-"Blue, white, red." This comes from an English person who wants a distinctive national flag.

South West Salvage Co. Ltd. Lethbridge, Alberta.
I am writing you about your proposal for a Canadian flag, other than the red ensign. I am in agreement with the flag your party is in favour of.

It concerns the little flags we had been talking about in this house. He is in favour of a distinctive national flag. It is not only the French Canadians of the province of *Quebec who are in favour of a distinctive national flag.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock? [Text]
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess, I spoke of the reaction of people everywhere in Canada, not only in one area or in one province, but everywhere in the country.
Before the dinner recess, I quoted letters sent to me from western Canada, that is from Lethbridge and Vancouver.
Tonight I would like to read into the record some other letters sent to me from the province of Ontario; one is dated August 26, 1964, and it comes from Kingston, in the province of Ontario:

Dear Mr. Caouette:
I wish to commend your remarks in the House of Commons with reference to the flag vote issue and I quote: "Whether it carries three maple leaves or one maple leaf, a beaver or a sheaf of wheat, as long as it is a distinctive Canadian flag, we shall support the government.. .we want Canadian symbols on our national emblem-not the symbols of France or the symbols of England..."
The statements made by other representatives that the proposed flag was nothing more than an attempt to please Quebec is far from the truth. Many of us in Ontario have been forced to live underground, so to speak, because Canada has no

national flag and no national symbols. It would be interesting indeed to breathe the air of Canadian freedom, if that is possible, under the protection of a Canadian national flag.
Yours sincerely,
Edna A. Kemp, B.A.
For my Conservative friends, if they want the address it is 162 Mack street, Kingston, Ontario.


David Réal Caouette: That lady even had the courtesy of sending me a copy, in good French, of her letter written in English.


Mr. Dupuis:: Did she also enclose her picture?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have another letter here, from Bolton, Ontario.

This letter is from Cedar Mills side road, rural route No. 4, Bolton, Ontario:
Dear Sir:
I gather from newspaper reports that you have introduced the above design for our new flag. I wholeheartedly support your efforts in this direction. While I think Mr. Pearson's design is very pretty, it has no historical significance for Canadians. I believe there would be much less outcry about replacing the red ensign if the flag that was to replace it had some tradition of its own. The above design has three centuries of Canadian history in its design.
The white half, next the pole, indicates the first century, when the French ruled Canada. The red half, on top, indicates that the British took over from the French and ruled Canada for the second century. The large maple leaf, superimposed on the two halves, indicates the last century, when Canada took control of its own territory. It is green, because green is the colour of growth, the growth we owe to all the other peoples, both original inhabitants and immigrants, that have helped to build this great country. It straddles the white and red halves because our hope is that it will weld the two language groups together into one truly united whole.
While the design has been put forward, I have not heard anyone explain the heraldic significance of it, and I think you would be doing a great service for your country if you could put this point across to the house. Even Mr. Diefenbaker could hardly fight with this flag.
In any event, I wish you luck and success in your efforts to replace the British flags that have been flown in the past. Incidentally, I am British born, respect and admire them, but am Canadian all the way.
Sincerely,
Leslie J. Baird

Mr. Speaker, others appreciate it.
Here is another letter from Scarborough, Ontario.

Dear Mr. Caouette:
It is indeed a pleasure to read with much interest your views regarding the present situation concerning one distinctive flag for all Canada. While the design as chosen by Mr. Pearson is not my preference I do feel that it should contain only one maple leaf and also that there should only be one official national flag as there is no other symbol of unity than one.
I have on many previous occasions intended writing to you but somehow did not take the time to do so. Although I live in another area of Canada than you do and though my official representative to the House of Commons is a member of the N.D.P. I have always been able to agree with your views on the multitude of problems that have confronted our country in the past few years, and therefore look upon you as my personal representative in the government of our great land.
That letter is from L. Harris, 21 Silvio avenue, Scarborough, Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know this Mr. L. Harris, living at 21 Sylvio avenue, Scarborough, Ontario.
Here is another letter, and this is the last one from which I will quote tonight. It comes from Toronto.

The three leaf design has a 90 year history in Canada. The maple leaf is now regarded as a Canadian symbol, so other nations would have no difficulty in recognizing the emblem as distinctively Canadian and "O Canada" as our official national anthem.
Yours faithfully,
George Bals.
He is from Toronto.

Mr. Speaker, those are testimonies received not from the province of Quebec, but from other areas of the country and which undoubtedly prove that there are unity, understanding and agreement among the Canadian people, that there are ties which unite us. There is disunity only among people who attempt to play petty politics, instead of putting their country above their political party.
I hear Conservatives such as the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent), the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), the hon. member for Joliette-PAssomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau), the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) especially, who keep on saying: "Why does such a member not rise, why does such a minister not rise? Why does not so-and-so rise to answer the questions we
Canadian Flag
ask him?'' Well, tonight I will ask those Conservative members a question. Why is not the hon. member for Three Rivers on his feet to say exactly what is happening, not only in his riding of Three Rivers, in the province of Quebec, but also to tell us about the action of his own leader, the Leader of the Opposition in the house (Mr. Diefenbaker)?
Mr. Speaker, we tried and we are still trying to rise above political partisanship on the choice of a distinctive national flag. As I said this afternoon, the Prime Minister made some concessions, and I am convinced that he is ready to make some more, not on behalf of the Liberal party, but on behalf of Canada, of national unity and understanding between Canadians of all ethnic origins.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in widening the gap between English and French Canadians and whether he is not trying to do so. When I hear him asking questions on orders of the day to know whether the Queen will be welcome or whether members of the F.L.Q. will be jailed, I wonder whether he is not interested in promoting bad publicity against the province of Quebec.
Yet last night, as I mentioned before the dinner recess, I saw a monstrous spectacle in Toronto, which was the arrival of the Beatles. For the information of the Leader of the Opposition, the Beatles are from England and they were none the less not well received in Toronto, or probably too well received. There, we saw things which should not happen anywhere in Canada.
We too regret what takes place in the province of Quebec from time to time, when some fanatic or hot-head raises an outcry against the coming visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Quebec or to Canada. But when the leader of the official opposition spends his time adding insult to injury, then he is hurting the cause of Canadian unity.
Mr. Speaker, you and I are both from the province of Quebec. You are not a French Canadian and I am one. But you have noticed how well, in the province of Quebec, English and French Canadians get along together and how much they respect each other, much more than the leader of the official opposition has ever respected the province of Quebec since the day he was born and since he has been a member of our nation's parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Conservative members disagree with what I am now saying. Nevertheless, I must add that during the past two months the leader of the official

Canadian Flag
opposition has been undermining Canadian unity and mutual understanding between the two ethnic groups in Canada.


An hon. Member:: He is a liberal, now.


David Réal Caouette: I hear the Conservatives accusing me of being a Liberal, of supporting the Liberals. It is well known that nobody in the province of Quebec has fought the Liberals as I did and that nobody in Quebec has fought the Conservatives as well as the Liberals as I did. No Conservative members will prevent me in this house from saying to the leader of the official opposition that his attitude has been prejudicial to Canadian unity and mutual understanding between French and English Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one to deplore that lamentable attitude and the unfortunate situation which is entirely due to the obstinacy of the Conservatives, who are trying to force an election because they think they would be returned to office thanks to the existing dissensions between French speaking and English speaking Canadians which they created themselves.
They come to the house to boast that English Canadians who were in favour of a distinctive flag are now changing their minds and would accept the red ensign, because they maintain that the distinctive national flag is only a way to please French Canadians of the province of Quebec. When Conservative members, wherever they come from, create such a state of mind, I say that they are playing their last trump card, because judging from what we hear throughout Canada, the Conservatives will lose many seats.
Mr. Speaker, this is what I read in Le Devoir of September 4, 1964-three days ago, in an item by Paul Sauriol:
The amendment to the government resolution calls for a referendum on the flag Issue; and this is unacceptable to French Canadians, because such a method implies that the decision of the majority would prevail without consideration of French Canadians' views.
The second subamendment is still more openly directed against our group. It proposes-
It is to be noted that Paul Sauriol is neither a Creditiste nor a Liberal; he is an independent newspaperman, with objective views.
It proposes that in the referendum which is still the object of the amendment the results be compiled on a national basis and not by areas or provinces. This is undemocratic and contrary to our federal system and, in addition, this subamendment would have the effect of swamping the Quebec vote in the total vote.
At the 1942 plebiscite, the King government paid no attention to the opinion of our group, to which
[Mr. Caouette.l
the promise in question had been made, but at least it was known that Quebec had solidly answered "no", even if the majority of Canadians had voted "yes".
This time, not only does Mr. Diefenbaker want to see the Quebec vote cancelled out in a referendum, he wants it made invisible. Then that is a real insult to Quebec. Now, last Tuesday, Mr. Diefenbaker asserted that, never in his life, had he uttered a single word which could be interpreted as against Quebec and that he had always worked for the French Canadians. Yet, that statement and the next day's subamendment are not easily reconciled. The explanation lies in one of two things; cynicism or irresponsibility. That is something which French Canadian members of the House of Commons will find hard to swallow.
Mr. Speaker, there we see the little understanding that exists between the leader of the official opposition and his Conservative colleagues from the province of Quebec.
A few minutes ago I asked why the hon. member for Three Rivers was not present in the house to voice accurately the views of Quebec.
Why does the hon. member for St. Hyacin-the-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) not do the same thing? Why does the hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) not do the same thing also?
I just heard a member of the Conservative party say-


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


David Réal Caouette: The Conservative members cannot do anything else but confuse the Canadian people as much as possible and confuse the issue of national unity in Canada. That is all we can expect from them.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to protest against the spurious remarks which the hon. member for Ville-neuve just made about me. If he had not stayed away from the house for 12 days, he would have noticed that I did not hesitate in taking position on the flag issue. I shall not allow myself to be labelled a sluggard or a coward in this matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I never said that the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere was a sluggard or a coward. But I maintain that, even if he voted against the subamendment of his leader the other day, he is now a follower of his leader in the house.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I want to protest those spurious remarks coming from a rather lame brain,

and I would ask the hon. member for Villeneuve to read the speech I made in the house on Monday, August 24, 1964.


An hon. Member:: It was hardly worth reading.


David Réal Caouette: I read his speech, Mr. Speaker, and, as one of my fellow members just said, it was hardly worth reading. I shall not say that he is a lame brain, because I have more consideration for the hon. member than he has for me. However, if he wants to measure his brain or his intellectual power against mine, I am ready to meet him anywhere-not in my riding, but in his own, for this is important-and we shall have a public joust on what is happening in the Conservative corner of the house, because in the hon. member's riding, like in other ridings of Quebec members, everybody has had enough of those nonsensical and endless discussions on a distinctive national flag.
When we visit our respective ridings people ask us: "When will you be through discussing this stupid issue that you have been debating for two months?"
Mr. Speaker, the issue has become serious. The more we discuss it here, in the house, the more the electorate is dissatisfied with our conduct. In fact, we have reached the point where youngsters of 10, 12 or 15 and older people of 40, 50 and 60 accuse us of behaving like school children in the house.
Who are the school children? They are the Conservatives who, under the leader of the official opposition, have imposed this interminable debate on hon. members and the whole of Canada.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that every serious consideration be given to the proposals made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and an end be put to the speeches and repetitions we have been hearing here for the past two months, more precisely for 22 days, on the flag issue. Let us stop acting like irresponsible people in the eyes of the Canadian electorate.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the government should take appropriate steps to bring this trivial debate to an end. We have heard over 100 Conservative speeches, endless repetitions by people who are trying to build up a political capital which is getting smaller all the time. Such an attitude will just bring about their own extermination.
I ask the Prime Minister, the government, not as a Liberal, because I am not one and never will be, but as a Canadian, that the government take steps to introduce in the
Canadian Flag
house an amendment, some conciliatory measure or other concessions so that this debate may end and that, at last we may come back to our senses before we lose our intellect, and that we go on with the adoption of real legislation, progressive legislation to give the people the security and liberty they expect from us, under a flag which would be Canada's own.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Do I
understand the hon. member for Brantford wishes to ask a question?


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask a further question of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in respect of the speech he made this afternoon?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask that hon. member whether he will make it clear to the house that it is his desire that the committee to deal with the flag issue, and to which he referred, would sit in camera on this matter?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to reply, I would like to state that this would be entirely a matter for the committee itself to decide. My own feeling is that the committee would do much better by sitting in camera, if not all the time, then most of the time. However, that is a matter for the committee itself to decide.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate this evening I cannot help but comment on the fact that today has been very interesting. Unfortunately the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is apparently leaving the house, because I should like to make reference to his speech, and state that it was a speech which lends itself more than any other to the creation of disunity in Canada. He has accused the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) of acting in a manner which will create great disunity in this country, but nothing is further from the truth. There has never been a speech made in this House of Commons which has created more disunity than that made by the hon. member for Villeneuve.
I am surprised that hon. members of that party speak in such terms about the leader of any group, in view of the fact that not one of them rose in defence of this country in its time of need. Today they are all prepared to defend Canada and say they are doing so for righteous causes. These are the same individ-

Canadian Flag
uals, and particularly the hon. member for Villeneuve, who refer to the work done by that right hon. gentleman as comparable to the efforts of Hitler and Mussolini. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to every member of this house, that we in the Conservative party are not creating anything like the disunity in this house and in this country that has been created by the words uttered by the hon. member for Villeneuve, and I say that only after listening to the remarks-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I say that, Mr. Speaker, only after listening to the remarks made by that hon. member.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to a question of privilege. I should like to say to that hon. member, who suggests that I used Hitler and Mussolini to make a comparison, that I have never known of a man in Canada who acts more like Hitler and Mussolini than his own leader, who is today acting against the national unity of Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, where is the question of privilege in that statement? I ask you to rule on that question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is no question of privilege in that remark, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I do not think the question of privilege referred to by the hon. member for Villeneuve is well taken. I do suggest that it would be better for hon. members to refrain from entering into personalities and confine their remarks to the debate before us.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Those remarks are nothing more than character assassination.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on a point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That assassination is made by an individual who is afraid to stand up and risk being charged with-


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disagree with the hon. member for Acadia, but he said there was no one in this group who had stood up to defend Canada. It is true I am not of an age which would have permitted me to fight in the last world war, Mr. Speaker. However I have a question of privilege, and I think I should have the opportunity of completing it. I can only defend what I believe. At the moment, I can com-
[Mr. Homer (Acadia) .1
pare my military experience with that of the hon. member for Acadia. Although he might have had an opportunity of defending his country in the last world war, today we are defending much more: We are defending the unity of Canada. I think he should put up his arms in that way.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We have had two hypothetical questions of privilege. The first one was no question of privilege whatever, and the second might have contained some element of privilege because the hon. member was not of age. However, the statement I made still stands unchallenged, because I looked up the facts in the parliamentary guide. Remember, I am talking about the facts and they are on record. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is on record as stating in 1940 and 1945 that Canada was not worth defending, was not worth fighting for. Now this hon. member stands as the conscience of the Canadian public. He reads letters from Lethbridge, from Ontario, from Vancouver and all across Canada. He has become the conscience of this parliament and the conscience of Canada, although in 1940 and 1945 he thought Canada was not worth fighting for. Are we supposed to take this man seriously, Mr. Speaker? I think not. This man said he admired Hitler and Mussolini and stated that Canada was not worth fighting for.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are we supposed to take him seriously? I think not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; the hon. member for Villeneuve, on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: I think there is a subamendment before this house and the hon. member should discuss it. Now he is discussing whether or not I was in the armed forces, and that is none of his business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: I will go a little further. In the province of Quebec, when the plebiscite took place in 1942 I was one of the many thousands that were fighting the Liberal government at that time. I am just as respectful as the hon. member for Acadia and I have no lesson to take from him. Mr. Speaker, I should like you to ask the hon. member to stay in order and discuss the subamendment that has been presented by his own party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I think the hon. member has made a personal explanation. Perhaps we can hear the hon. member for Acadia now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have listened to the hon. member very carefully. I only stated what I did because-


David Réal Caouette: You said nothing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If I said nothing, why did it hurt so much? Why did the hon. member rise twice-thrice? He did so because it hurt; because I said something. The hon. member said in 1940 and 1945 Canada was not worth fighting for. He has said quite a bit about Canada. I am proud he does not come from western Canada. If I have offended any of my fellow members from eastern Canada, I can only say that I am proud that he is not a member of this party. The hon. member is talking a lot and I am sorry I cannot hear him because I am sure those are pearls of wisdom which it would be better if you and I heard, Mr. Speaker.
I only stated what I did because the leader of the social credit rally party referred to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and charged him with creating disunity in Canada by continuing this debate. It pleases me a great deal to rise and speak on this amendment, and in particular on the subamendment before us. The subamendment contains provisions for the taking of a plebiscite, and, in the interests of national unity, indicates that the results of the plebiscite be published on a national basis only rather than a regional or provincial basis. The whole purpose behind this subamendment is to show the government a way out of the present flag crisis in which they find themselves. We are suggesting, by means of the amendment, that a plebiscite or referendum be carried out in a certain way and that the facts be published in such a way that unity will be maintained in this country of ours.
I am pleased to speak at this time to this subamendment. I suggested at the commencement of my remarks that this had been a very interesting day. We sat for 90 minutes, Mr. Speaker, while a party which has continually asked for a vote, which had been sitting over there for 20 days shouting "Question, question", and "Vote, vote"-


An hon. Member:: And 50 Tories were away.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -waited to collect its members. The vote came as no surprise. There was a vote last Thursday and after that vote 20220-490
Canadian Flag
an hon. member stated he would bring this up from time to time. Another vote came today and we waited 90 minutes for the government to produce its members. We were told later on the delay was caused by the fact there were two or three flights from Newfoundland, Toronto and other points in Canada bringing in members so that the Liberals could substantiate their belief that this flag debate should continue. This is their belief, that this flag debate should continue. We wanted this debate to end, but they voted for this flag debate to continue. I repeat that, so that there will be no doubt about it. The response of the government was that this debate shall continue.
It was interesting, Mr. Speaker, to watch the voting of the party of the hon. member who moved the motion. On Thursday night some hon. members of that party voted for the continuance of this debate. Now, we have only had two speakers since Thursday night and yet all members of that party who were present voted to have the debate cease.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is odd they could not realize this on Thursday night. It is interesting to note this particular change-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -in so far as the
various parties in this house are concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Megantic on a question of privilege.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not believe it is the privilege of the hon. member for Acadia to discuss or comment in any way upon how a member of this house voted. After all, if I voted one way on Thursday and presented a motion today, I took the time to explain why I presented such a motion. It is not up to the hon. member for Acadia to decide whether I should have voted one way or the other. I think he should stick to the matter under discussion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I think there is some merit in the point of order raised by the hon. member for Megantic. I say to the hon. member for Acadia that I do not believe he is quite in order in making reference to a vote that has already been taken in this house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a debate on the flag. As I mentioned in

Canadian Flag
my opening remarks, we have had a very interesting day. I could not help but refer back to Thursday night when a vote was taken to sustain this debate. If the hon. member had a change of heart from Thursday to Tuesday that is fine. I have no objection. I am just pointing out the fact that he had.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If hon. members are objecting to this being pointed out, if they are ashamed of the way they voted on Thursday, let them stand up and say so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that he is out of order when he reflects on the way in which a member voted in a vote that has already been taken. I believe the hon. member should continue with his speech on the subamendment.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) seemed to point to me specifically and say I had a change of heart since last Thursday. That is true. I explained my position today, and this is one proof that we have no stupid-headed fools in this party at least.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the hon. member meant by that last remark-stupid fools.


An hon. Member:: Everybody else does.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He apparently is ashamed of his Thursday night vote.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member does not have the right to comment on a vote taken in the house, either on my vote or on anybody else's vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I am sure the hon. member for Acadia does not want me to continue to remind him that he is out of order when he persists in reflecting on a vote already taken in the house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I intended to get right along with my speech, but the slightest reference really seems to dig deep. While I know most members of the house are quite proud of the way they voted, particularly those in this party, many of those on the other side wished they could have voted otherwise, but because they were not allowed a free vote three months ago-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -they could not vote the way they wished.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I would remind the hon. member he is out of order by making reference to any vote taken in the house. Maybe the hon. member would consider the incident finished and go on with his speech.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacInnis: -where nobody can refer to votes which have taken place in the house, is there some quotation with which the Chair can guide the house, because this takes place here day in and day out. Parties are continually referring to the way other parties voted on certain issues in days gone by.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is standing order 35.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have had a persistent breach of the rules, and this has been drawn to the attention of the hon. member three times. The applicable rule is standing order 35, the last sentence of which is:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
Beauchesne's fourth edition, at page 113, paragraph 125, goes on to elaborate on this standing order, and subparagraph 3 of the citation reads:
A member may not speak against or reflect upon any determination of the house, unless he intends to conclude with a motion for rescinding it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, no later than this afternoon the Prime Minister himself took it upon himself to count the number of Conservatives present and made a very pointed reference to the number present.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He only referred to those who did not vote.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, he did not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: 
Mr. Nugent:: May I make a comment on that point of order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I do not
think there is any need to have any further comment on this matter. The point of order has been raised and I have given the ruling that the hon. member is out of order. Maybe we can now allow the hon. member for Acadia to continue.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: If I might, on that point of order there is a point that has not been mentioned. The hon. member was talking about the situation at the time that existed before another situation arose in which the question developed as to how the hon. member should vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. This is not the matter upon which I am ruling. I am ruling upon the fact that according to standing order 35 the hon. member for Acadia does not have the right to reflect upon a vote already taken.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say I regret I may have caused you any inconvenience in ruling on my behalf. I had no intention when I rose to speak of causing you any difficulty in ruling whether I was in order or out of order. I was only rising to the debate offered to me by previous speakers, and I shall refrain from commenting on that party's remarks during the rest of my speech. I might say that they were ashamed of their past actions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and I would now like to refer to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and his speech-


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -in which he said a flag must be a symbol of the hopes and aspirations-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Is the hon. member for Megantic rising to ask a question?


Raymond Langlois: No, I rise on a question of privilege on the statement made by the hon. member for Acadia. I would like the hon. member for Acadia to withdraw his statement that we were ashamed of our past role, our past vote-
20220-490J
Canadian Flag


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: He did not say that.


Raymond Langlois: If that was his intention I can assure the hon. member for Acadia I have never regretted any action or vote I have taken, whether on Thursday night or today, and if the situation pops up again I shall do the same thing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
The hon. member for Megantic has made his explanation but I doubt that the words used by the hon. member for Acadia are unparliamentary.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the speech of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) in which he stated that a flag once adopted by a country-I jotted these notes down-must be a symbol of the hopes and aspirations for the future of that country. I wholeheartedly agree with these remarks. He also went on to say it must have the support of the vast majority of the people who will accept and worship that flag in the future. Perhaps this is interpreting the words of the hon. member, and if he disagrees with my interpretation maybe he will rise and say so. He went on to say that the flag now before the house has been brought in the wrong way, has been brought in at the wrong time and has been handled very poorly by the government. I wholeheartedly agree with him in that respect.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The understatement of the year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggested a way out. His whole speech was as if he were acting as a mediator between the devil and the deep blue sea, or between the two sides.


An hon. Member:: Which is which?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I leave it to you to
interpret. I know which is the devil. The hon. member suggested a committee of 15 members, a suggestion which has been floating around and which I think was first offered by the Leader of the Opposition.


An hon. Member:: Are you sure?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes I am sure, if you want to know. This whole suggestion of a committee of 15 members was presented by the official opposition. The whole tenor of the hon. member's remarks was that you cannot bring in a flag unless it is accepted by the vast majority, that you cannot bring in a flag or you cannot expect the people to accept a flag unless it meets the wishes of the majority. Then he went on to say we should have

Canadian Flag
this committee of 15 members and limit its sittings to two months. What happens if after two months the committee has not reached a majority decision? The hon. member did not mention that possibility. He did not say its findings would be backed by a majority, or a vast majority, or an overwhelming majority. He simply said that in two months the committee should end its sittings. It does not matter whether it has called in the Legion or other interested parties; in two months its work is to end. Then we should decide how long the debate is to last in this house.
What will happen if the committee having sat for two months and a decision having been made to the effect that there should be a ten days debate in this house there is still strong opposition in the country to the flag proposed by the government or by the committee? The hon. member did not deal with that situation at all.
The hon. member went on to say emphatically that the government should not expect to impose upon the people of Canada a flag they did not want. I am sure that if he disagrees with me he will rise and say so. He said this emphatically. Yet he did not propose any means of dealing with a situation such as I have described-the committee having sat for two months and the House of Commons being at a stalemate after a debate of ten days, or one week, or two weeks on this issue. The hon. member did not suggest any means of dealing with a situation like that. As one hon. member opposite has said, he was just hoping.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the hon. member permit a question? I suggested that when the committee had prepared its report the party leaders would then meet to discuss whether or not any limitation on the length of debate would be established in connection with the committee's report. I take it that if the committee was virtually unanimous in its conclusion the leaders would decide that only a short time was necessary. But if the committee was nowhere close to being unanimous it would be a much longer time. The decision would be one entirely for the party leaders themselves. It seems to me that is fairly conclusive.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Fairly conclusive if a conclusion is reached by the committee in two months. But where are we left if a conclusion has not been reached at the end of that time? We would be left exactly where we are today. Does the hon. member agree with me? He agrees with that. He agrees with

my interpretation of his remarks. So I say there is no need to put a time limit on the deliberations of the committee. Even though members over there say "oh" and "aye" and whatever else they are told, they too are in favour of a committee. So why put on a time limit? I ask this question: Why do we need a flag this winter, this fall, or next spring? We have gone on for years-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the hon. member permit a further question? If he would look at the statement of his leader on August 21 he would be aware of the fact that his leader has already agreed to the suggestion that the committee should report in 60 days.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I realize that my leader is a compromising gentleman and prepared to go more than half way in settling this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggests in that all-inclusive manner of his that the issue can be resolved quite simply in a matter of two months. I am pointing out that it may not be as simple as he imagines, even though my leader has said he is prepared to accept a two months limit on the sittings of the committee.
I myself wholeheartedly support the idea of a committee of 15 members, seven from the government side, five from this party and one from each of the others. I am in wholehearted support of there being a time limit on the debate when the issue comes back to this house-


An hon. Member:: 


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are right: If

if the committee has unlimited time and reaches a virtually unanimous decision. Is it impossible that this should happen? The committee of 1945 reached a virtually unanimous decision, 21 to 1, I believe.


An hon. Member:: You were not on the committee.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Twenty three to one was the exact figure. Now, we have the same question, the same country, the same people. Why cannot it be resolved in a similar way in this committee? There is no reason whatsoever. I come back to this. Why does the government insist there must be a time limit on the sittings of the committee? We got along from 1945 to 1964, nearly 20 years, without this proposed design. We went along right

through the period between 1867 and 1945 without, or with, a flag, depending on the way you want to interpret the situation. What is the hurrry? Where are we rushing to? I say to the leader of the house, whom I see shaking his head: Is this flag now proposed by the government likely to create greater unity? Is it likely to be a uniting force around which all Canadians will gather? Now let him shake his head. No, sir. This proposed new flag, especially having regard to the manner in which it was placed before us, is not a uniting force; it is not a symbol behind which all Canada will unite.
The leader of the New Democratic party pointed this out clearly. He said the government had brought this issue before us at the wrong time, in the wrong way. They had handled it badly, he said. He stated the proposed flag was not a uniting force. Many members have expressed the opinion that this debate has divided the country and will continue to do so. I do not accept that. Perhaps as a young member of the House of Commons I look to the future with greater interest than do some who are here. I see one problem confronting Canada-one which will loom large in the years ahead. It is the problem of unity. Will we stay united, or will we divide? We hear talk of two nations and of a separate state. I wonder whether we will stay united. I know the Prime Minister is concerned about this problem, too. It took him 90 minutes to decide how to vote this afternoon-whether to end this debate or have it continued. It took him 90 minutes to make that decision. I do not begrude him the time, though at the time I might have done so, since I was anxious to make this speech. But it showed me he was concerned about unity in Canada. I hope that when the next similar vote comes up he will have reached the decision which is requisite from the leader of a government responsible for the position confronting parliament today. I hope he will reach a decision to end this debate until such time as the subject will create unity in Canada, not divide the country as it is doing at the present time.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said many Conservatives have stated that this proposal by the government is a concession to Quebec. I do not believe it is, but it is understood and accepted by Canadians across this country as being a concession to Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Repeat that.
Canadian Flag


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone says: "Repeat that". I do not think this a concession to Quebec. But I do say-and I have seen evidence for this in editorial pages across Canada-that a good many Canadians in various parts of the country believe this is a concession to Quebec.


Mr. Cashin:: Does the hon. member not feel, then, that he is under an obligation to go across the country telling the people what he thinks-telling those who believe this to be a concession to Quebec that it is not so? Would he perhaps start on this crusade within the next 24 hours.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, that question really did not make much sense. If the hon. member is prepared to organize the meetings, I am prepared to speak at them. As we look around the world today-and I say this in all seriousness to the government of Canada-we see countries divided. We see Cyprus, for example. Canada is playing a great role in trying to bring unity and peace to that country. We look at the Middle East; we look at the country to the south of us. You can look at any part of the world today and see disunity caused by racial problems. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we should not join with other countries in the world and promote or create greater disunity in this country of ours, a country which until the past year had been united. Let us remain united, above all. This is the whole purpose of the subamendment, namely to keep us united and to foster unity in our country. As I have said, as a young member of parliament I look perhaps to the future and see that the biggest problem facing Canada in the next 10 or 20 years is unity. We must stay united if we expect to grow and if we expect to maintain our stature throughout the world.
The press has written up this debate as a terrible fiasco, as a terrible thing. Some hon. members have emphasized the fact that 20 days have been spent on this debate. These 20 days may go down as the best 20 days this parliament has ever spent. If because of this debate unity is maintained and promoted, the time could not have been better occupied. We hear a great deal of talk about confederation; we hear a great deal of talk today about opting out, about dominion-provincial rights and dominion-provincial cost sharing programs and the splitting up of tax sharing arrangements between the provinces and the federal government. We hear a great deal of talk about maintaining a strong central government, and also about maintaining a strong

Canadian Flag
separate province, a province to which more and more rights should be doled out.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that it we can maintain and promote unity in this country, these 20 days will have been well spent and may well be the best days this parliament or any other parliament has spent since confederation. The press may write any reports they like. I know that the people across Canada are tired of this debate; I know they think parliament should get on to more pressing business. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government is responsible for this debate and it is their responsibility to bring forth legislation that is so necessary.


Mitchell William Sharp: We have.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone over there says "We have"; I think it was the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). I wonder whether he supports what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) said today to the press, namely that we have to shut out all Japanese trade. I wonder how the western farmers like that. I know they did not like it a few years ago when we made similar statements, although they were not nearly as strong as the statement of the Minister of Finance today.
They talk about legislation. We have said from time to time, "Bring forward your pension legislation; bring forward your agricultural machinery legislation that will revamp and revolutionize agriculture", as stated by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) in Lethbridge back in March. He said the opposition was holding up this legislation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce nods his head as if to agree that we are holding up this legislation. It is not even on the order paper; neither is the pension legislation. Bring it forward; put it on the order paper. It is the government's responsibility to bring it forward.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we voted in favour of the motion so that the government could bring forward this necessary legislation. How did the minister and the rest of the cabinet vote? They voted to continue this debate; they wanted to hear more as to why their flag should or should not be approved by this House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member is again reflecting on a vote which has already been taken by the house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Trade and Commerce led me astray by nodding his head. He

led me to cast reflections upon his action this afternoon, which was contrary to the impression he created when shaking his head while I was speaking earlier.


An hon. Member:: Deceitful people.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is a sorry state in which we find ourselves in this Canadian parliament, stalemated and blocked from proceeding with necessary legislation. The farmers all across Canada are waiting for this legislation to be passed. I do not know whether they want to be called grocery growers or not; I do not think they do. I am a farmer, and I want to be called a farmer and not a grocery grower. If the Minister of Agriculture can dream up any term to apply to me and the farmers of Canada, let him do so; but we are proud to be farmers. It is a sad commentary on this parliament when we find ourselves stalemated by the government. They realize this debate has reached an impasse but they will not, because of their stubborn arrogance, bring in necessary legislation. This is a proud, arrogant government which has presented a flag that has been termed a political flag and which, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) quite properly said, is a flag that will cause Canada to remain divided in the years ahead. This proud, arrogant and dictatorial government is trying to ram down the throats of Canadians a flag of one man's choosing. It is not a flag of two or three men; it is not a flag the cabinet has decided upon; it is not a party or backbenchers' flag, but is a flag of one man's choosing. We have as evidence in this regard the speech of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan).


An hon. Member:: Was it good?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It was very good, because the hon. member who has interjected did not challenge it, and neither has any other backbencher or cabinet minister challenged it. I think the hon. member's word is good, because nobody on that side of the house, neither backbencher nor cabinet minister, had the guts to stand up and challenge what was said. Hon. members opposite know whether this design was presented or even talked about in their caucus; they know better than I do. I ask them to stand up and say it was not. They can throw out these red herrings, if they like, but they will not lead me astray this evening.
We have the word of the hon. member for York-Humber, and no one in his party has challenged what he said. It has not been

challenged by any backbencher who might have attended the caucuses of that party. No cabinet minister, and not even the leader of that party, has challenged it. This is a one-man flag which will be portrayed as Pearson's pennant as long as Canada exists.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: No, not from a sticker-licker.


Yvon Dupuis: Does my hon. friend remember having said in this house in 1961:
I think that any attempt to include the union jack or red ensign in the flag would merely degrade two well known and honourable flags.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sure that if my hon. friend reads my whole speech which I made in 1961, rather than picking out a sentence from it, I would be pleased if he would rise in his place and ask me about it. But I have the floor and have only five or six minutes left.


Yvon Dupuis: Answer my question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said, read my whole speech. Mr. Speaker, I hope you are deducting the appropriate amount of time to allow for these people who are interrupting me in the course of my remarks. While I have not too much time left there are a few things I want to say, and I trust the Chair will give me 40 minutes, which is what all hon. members ask for.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will answer the question, do not worry. Give me time this evening and I will answer it.
We are suggesting that this government has no mandate. In presenting this flag the government has contributed to and is aiding the division of Canada. We have suggested that they made no real promise before the 1963 election that they would present a flag to parliament, and I say that they have not stood on their feet and substantiated any of the points I have just made.
I should like to refer to an interview which took place on November 9, 1961 in which the present Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition, was interviewed by Mr. John Andrews of CJCH news bureau. It starts in this way:


Mr. Andrews:: Mr. Pearson, how do you feel about a distinctive Canadian flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I feel very friendly toward a distinctive Canadian flag. In fact, it's been on our program now for some years...a distinctive Canadian flag...
Canadian Flag


William Andres: What particular design do you have in mind?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I haven't any particular design in mind...
So in 1961 he did not have any particular design in mind, yet the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) said on a T.V. program in 1960 that he told Canadians that if he was elected prime minister he would bring in a particular design for a Canadian flag. The interview continues:


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have a distinctive Canadian flag which could not be mistaken for the flag of any other country. ...that's as far as I've got.


William Andres: Then you wouldn't have the union jack in it.
Then the Prime Minister replied that he could not make a statement on this at that time. Then Mr. Andrews asked, in deciding what design we should have:
How would you poll the people on this?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would poll the people when we have a general election. And if they don't like the idea of a distinctive Canadian flag which can't be mistaken for that of any other country, they'll let us know in no uncertain terms.
Hon. members opposite got 42 per cent of the vote. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that in no uncertain terms? Is that a majority government? As the hon. member for York-Humber quite explicitly pointed out in his speech, they did not even present the flag to the electorate in the 1963 election. They did not even point out-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with you. I was continually interrupted from the commencement of my remarks, and I certainly have not taken 40 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The Clerk at the table has given me the time when the hon. member began his speech and I have made an appropriate allowance for the interruptions the hon. member has had. I must advise him that his time has expired.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker-well, if the hon. member is going to ask me a question I will answer it.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, it was not at all my intention to take part in this debate, but as my hon. friend did not answer my question

Canadian Flag
and suggested that I speak after him, may I take a few minutes of the time of the house to recall briefly what took place in the House of Commons on the question of a national plebiscite as the one requested now by our friends in their subamendment.
First of all, as I intend to be brief, I would like to say that I am proud of having been here this afternoon when the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) made a speech which, in my opinion-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) rose to his feet the members on this side of the house were under the impression that he was rising for the purpose of asking a question. According to the ruling made last week in the house, all that was necessary, in effect, was for a speaker to yield the floor in order to give an hon. member permission to ask a question. However, it now appears that the hon. minister is making a speech, and in doing so he needs the necessary recognition from the Chair, which was not forthcoming. The hon. member on this side accepted a question from the minister, who is now proceeding to make a speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) could not accept a question without the unanimous consent of the house, his time, plus a very generous allowance given by the Chair, having expired. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is this a speech or a question?


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that since the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) stated that he did not have time to answer my question, I would make a speech.
I said I was glad to be in the House of Commons this afternoon when the leader of the New Democratic party made what I consider as a historical speech, above all partisanship, and I take this opportunity to congratulate him sincerely for his contribution to the debate.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to give the debate a political slant, but I would merely like to remind-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the minister permit a question? He has just said that the leader of

the New Democratic party had made a speech well above partisan politics and he wanted to congratulate him for that. Would he care to explain to the house how he can equate that with his position as chief huckster for the government of the three maple leaf flag?


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, evidently, if the hon. member who has just put a question were intelligent, his question would be intelligent, but, one cannot give what one has not got.
Mr. Speaker, a while ago, I asked a question of the hon. member for Acadia. The hon. member should certainly have been most careful before making his speech, for in January 1961, when the Tory government, headed by the man who is today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), was making no decisions, a Conservative member, Mr. Regnier, saw fit to submit to the house, because of his chief's irresolution, a motion for a national referendum or plebiscite.
On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just resumed his seat, had something to say.
Evidently, I cannot take all the time I am allowed to read the hon. member's speech, but I wish to quote a few excerpts, which may lead my Conservative friends to do some thinking.
Listen to this. On January 23, 1961, in the House of Commons, when the present Leader of the Opposition was prime minister and reigning supreme, with an overwhelming majority in the house, the hon. member for Acadia said this:

I think that any attempt to include the union jack or red ensign in the flag would merely degrade two well known and honourable flags. Between now and 1967, when Canada will celebrate its centennial, we hope that Canada will continue to grow in stature and as a nation. Right now the provinces are meeting with the federal government in order to work out ways by which Canada can amend the British North America Act without having to go to the British government for final approval of amendments. When this day arrives I think we will have passed another milestone in becoming a truly independent nation, and surely when we pass that milestone and celebrate our centennial we should feel entitled to have a truly distinctive flag.

Mr. Speaker, the man who said that is the Conservative member for Acadia, who just resumed his seat, when he was sitting with the Diefenbaker government. I commend him, I agree with him and it is to congratulate him that I rose to my feet.

The hon. member for Acadia said, as recorded on page 1318 of Hansard for January 23, 1961, year of the reign of "his gracious majesty" the hon. member for Prince Albert:

Surely an artist in designing a flag should adhere to simplicity and present a design that is well known and recognizably representative of Canada, one that would be recognized and accepted the world over. I think a flag must be emblematic of the country it represents so that it will not be mistaken for the flag of another country.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member and state that I agree with him. I note that he left the house before I mentioned what he had said, because he realizes what he did say and he is ashamed now.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to a question of privilege. I am sure that the minister, if he reflects upon the reason the hon. member left the house, will realize that even for that hon. minister, this is getting to be pretty low.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I know why the hon. member for Acadia left the house, and it is certainly not because he is afraid of anything that huckster might say. The minister referred to the statement, that only after we have passed that milestone and repatriated the constitution could that be done.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I think if the hon. minister reflects further he will conclude that he should qualify at least his remarks in respect of that statement.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I hope you keep track of the interruptions because, I too, have many things to say.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister without Portfolio should withdraw the remark he made about the hon. member for Acadia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: He is not man enough to withdraw.


Donald MacInnis: I think the Minister without Portfolio should definitely withdraw the statement he made in respect of the reason the
Canadian Flag
hon. member for Acadia left his seat. While the hon. member for Acadia was making his speech a page informed me that there was a long distance call for him. I personally went to the phone for the hon. member who had asked me to find out who was calling and what the individual wanted, and advise them that the hon. member would call them back as soon as he had concluded his remarks. I base this statement on a message I received from one of the page boys. I think the minister should withdraw his statement.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I presume-and I speak slowly in order that the translators may interpret my speech correctly-that when I began to quote him, the hon. member for Acadia must have been embarrassed because he left his seat, but I think that he was especially embarrassed over his party's stand and not over his, because he frankly said what he had to say in 1961. And I continue the quotation


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


An hon. Member:: There is no point of order.


Donald MacInnis: I have explained to the Chair that the hon. member for Acadia left his seat having received a message from the page that there was a long distance call for him. I would not stand here and repeat this explanation if it was not the actual fact. The minister has indicated that the hon. member for Acadia left his seat for an entirely different reason. He must accept my explanation, or call me to order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Perhaps the members of this house will allow me to say that the hon. member for Cape Breton South has explained why the hon. member for Acadia left this chamber, and I am sure the Minister without Portfolio wilt accept that explanation.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to accept the explanation of the phone call, but that does not change the facts.
I resume quoting what the hon. member for Acadia said when the Conservatives were in office, on January 23, 1961.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Quit trying to change the facts.
7758	HOUSE OF
Canadian Flag


Yvon Dupuis: I do not understand why my Conservative friends take exception to remarks made by their own colleague. I do not understand it at all. They filibustered long enough, they can at least let me speak. They asked us to speak and when we rise to do so, they try to interrupt us. Are they sincere?
Here is what the hon. member for Acadia said under a Conservative government on January 23, 1961 about the resolution of the Conservative member for St. Boniface who at that time asked for a referendum. Remember that when in office the then leader did not want one, but now that he is in opposition, he does.
Listen to this:

The resolution suggests that we should have a referendum. I do not think it is necessary to go to the trouble and expense of doing so when we will be taking a census this year.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Yvon Dupuis: The hon. member for Acadia, and he then continued as follows:
I agree with the hon. member who proposed an amendment to the resolution.

Now that he is through with is phone call, I wish to tell the hon. member for Acadia, who is now returning to the house, that I congratulate him.

In the census I believe the only question that should be asked is: Are you in favour of a truly distinctive flag? That is the first question that should be answered. If the answer is overwhelmingly in the affirmative then the government in power should have the courage to decide on a truly distinctive flag.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Yvon Dupuis: I want to congratulate the hon. member for Acadia in respect of the statements he put on record in 1961. I could not agree more with him. He was a real Canadian in those days.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to a question of privilege. The hon. minister referred to my leaving the house, and I should like to say that I left the house to answer a call which was-


An hon. Member:: We heard all this.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I left the house to answer a call that-


An hon. Member:: This is the same old story.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, there is so much shouting going on that I cannot hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: You cannot hear the minister's withdrawal?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Order please. It would appear that the hon. member for Acadia wishes to make an explanation, and I suggest there are two avenues open to him. He may ask the Minister without Portfolio, who is now making a speech, to yield the floor and allow him to make his explanation, or he can wait until the minister has completed his remarks, and then, under certain conditions, make an explanation. I suggest to him, however, that the explanation which he feels he should make does not constitute a question of privilege.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister without Portfolio has cast aspersions on my conduct as a member of this house. It is on that point that I wish to raise this question of privilege. I left the house because I was called away, and while I was away I looked at what remarks I had made in 1961.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Just to make it clear, I should like to read this one sentence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In 1961, I said this:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I personally am satisfied with the flag we have.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Will the hon. member resume his seat, please?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What I said in 1961, I stand by.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Will the member has given an explanation as to why he left the house. However, he has already made his speech and he cannot now refute any argument that is being made by the Minister without Portfolio.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will refute anything he says, and give him proof.


An hon. Member:: You had a telephone call?


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate it very much if the hon. member who just made the remark from your right would stand up

and identify himself as having made that remark which casts a reflection on the explanation I gave to this house. I wonder if he has the guts to stand up and identify himself? As I said before, the message I received on behalf of the hon. member for Acadia was delivered here during his speech by a page boy.


Mr. Tardif:: Since we are talking about *"guts", Mr. Speaker, no doubt we are talking about intestinal fortitude, and there is no shortage of that on this side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Tardif: Furthermore, it was stated to this house that the hon. member had been called to receive a telephone call. The hon. member came into the house and said he had gone to get his notes or a copy of the speech he made before.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of privilege-


Paul Tardif: Which one is true?
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Batten): Order, the hon. member-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are we charging admission to the galleries tonight?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Cape Breton South has given an explanation as to why the hon. member for Acadia left the chamber. Under the rules of this house hon. members in this chamber must accept that explanation. Now, perhaps we can get on with the remarks of the Minister without Portfolio.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: If I may, I should like to speak to this question of privilege. We cannot allow the statement of the hon. member for Russell to stand. He questions the explanation given. The hon. member for Acadia said that he went out to take a phone call and while he was out there took advantage of the opportunity to look at his notes. The hon. member for Russell just twisted that explanation, and I hope he will withdraw that scurrilous remark.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; the Chair has already ruled that the explanation given by the hon. member for Cape Breton South must be accepted by the members in this chamber. There can be no debate on that matter.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: 1 am asking the Chair to rule on the remarks of the hon. member for *Russell.
Canadian Flag


Paul Tardif: If the hon. member will give me a chance I am very happy to say now that I accept the statements made by both members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, I should like to read to the house citation 145, page 126 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. Perhaps if I read part of it that would be sufficient:
A statement made by a member in his place, is considered as made upon honour and cannot be questioned in the house or out of it.
I would expect that the members of this chamber would abide by that rule.


Donald MacInnis: I have a further question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Your ruling has indicated that my explanation as to why the hon. member for Acadia left the house must be accepted. On the basis of that ruling, I ask the hon. member for Russell to withdraw the insinuation he cast upon my explanation.


Paul Tardif: It is not necessary for me to withdraw. All I need say is that I accept your explanation, and I do so with great difficulty.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Now, Mr. Speaker, that remark must be withdrawn. The hon. member has abandoned the twist he put on before and is trying to weasel out of it. He made a plain imputation, and this weaseling cannot be allowed in a house of honourable gentlemen. If we are a house of honourable gentlemen, I would ask the hon. member for Russell to prove whether or not we are.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, may I read again the last part of citation 145:
A statement made by a member in his place, is considered as made upon honour and cannot be questioned in the house or out of it.
I suggest to the hon. member for Russell that he accept the explanation given.


Paul Tardif: I rise in my place, Mr. Speaker, and I do so with pleasure.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, those points of order have given our hon. friends opposite a breathing spell.
It is obvious that they are not happy tonight; however, for the last ten days they have been urging the ministers to take part in the debate, but when one of them rises, they are very unhappy because they would have preferred that he had remained silent, as they are not over anxious to listen to us.

Canadian Flag
I quoted the words of the hon. member for Acadia; no need for him to be vexed, because I have great esteem for him and I consider that what he said in this house in January 1961 was nothing but the truth. So much so that at that time, when the hon. member for Acadia stated:

I do not think it is necessary to go to the trouble and expense of doing so when we will be taking a census this year.

I was so convinced that he was right on January 23, 1961, that on the day after, January 24 of that same year, I was in this house and I thought I would give the then prime minister the opportunity to support his member for Acadia. The day after the great discovery of the hon. member for Acadia, I moved in the House of Commons, in order to facilitate his task, Bill No. C-60, of which I have a copy here; and in order to comply with the hon. member's wish I entitled the bill: an act to amend the Statistics Act.
Here are the explanations I gave on that occasion:

Here is the explanation that was given to the house, in support of the hon. member, who is my greatest friend. I quote:
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize the governor in council to conduct a public opinion survey on the occasion of the next decennial census in Canada, concerning an entirely distinctive national flag and national anthem.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Have you changed your mind?


Yvon Dupuis: No, I will explain that. We never change our minds, but occasionally the history of our country changes with the government. I will explain everything you want. You want us to tell you the truth, and you will get the truth tonight.
I continue:
Since the census-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker- [Translation]


Yvon Dupuis: Will you allow me to speak or do you prefer to carry out your own filibuster?
And I go on:


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You interrupted me often enough.


Yvon Dupuis: I quote:
Since the census forms have to go back to press shortly-

This is in support of the hon. member.
-it would be a fine opportunity-
-for that great man, Mr. Diefenbaker-
-to include those two questions in order to learn the wishes of the Canadian people on this matter of great current interest.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are you prepared to do that now?


Yvon Dupuis: This was what the hon. member said in 1961.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are you prepared to do that now?


Yvon Dupuis: He is asking me a question, and I will answer the question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are you prepared to do that now? The hon. member wishes me to put a question to him. Are you prepared to do that now?


Yvon Dupuis: Let me answer you. I will answer you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He does not say yes or no.


Yvon Dupuis: I will say yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The Minister without Portfolio has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You say yes.


Yvon Dupuis: I want to answer and he does not want me to answer. This is a real Tory tactic.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sitting here listening to you.


Yvon Dupuis: I will answer you. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, when does a government call for a referendum to answer the hon. member for Acadia's question?
He asks me: "Are you or are you not in favour of a referendum?" I answer immediately: No, today, I am not in favour, and here are my reasons.
When should a government call for a referendum? Everybody knows that there are two main reasons for a government to call for a referendum.
First, a government may want to ask the people to be released from a commitment, and that was the case of the 1952 referendum-


An hon. Member:: 1942.


Mr, Dupuis:: Yes, 1942.
Second the opposition or the government may ask for a referendum when it is clear,

obvious and unquestionable that the government in power cannot take its responsibilities and wants to leave it to the electors.
Now, today, we have a government that wants to assume its responsibilities and that does assume them. We do not want to be released from any commitment. We want to carry out the pledge we made to the people of Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When and where did you make that promise you are talking about? [Translation]


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is it a promise like that clearly set out by the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson)?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I am sure the house would want to accord the ordinary courtesies of the chamber to the Minister without Portfolio who is now making a speech and who has the right to continue without being interrupted.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a question of privilege. When I was making my speech I was interrupted continually by members opposite and on this side of the floor. I would only ask the minister if he would explain when and where such a promise was made, and was it a promise in accord with the definition of a promise set out more clearly by the Postmaster General?


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I can see that my friend from Acadia is nervous tonight. I see it as plainly as if I were in his shoes, but I would advise him to consult his immediate neighbour who is a doctor and who perhaps could feel his pulse, give him some advice and help him to contain himself during my speech.
I have here the text of a promise made by the Liberal party. Do not forget this: the present Leader of the Opposition, who has been prime minister of Canada-I see that my friend the hon. member for Acadia is again going to the telephone. There is no doubt about it, those people use the telephone a lot. They use it quite a lot. I know that if he is leaving the house, it is not because he is ashamed, but because he is wanted on the telephone.
I know now that it was not because he was ashamed, but because he had to answer a telephone call.
Canadian Flag
Mr. Speaker, I see the former minister of veterans affairs (Mr. Churchill) looking at me. He moved the subamendment. He was a member of the government then. He is one of the old die-hards. Those are the men who were in office for six years, and who had the greatest majority of all times in the House of Commons. Those are the men who, when they were in office, were asked by their own Conservative members to hold a referendum. At that time, they did not choose to do so, they even refused the request of their own members.
When they are at the helm, when they are all powerful, there is no referendum. But today, when they are in the official opposition, they suddenly become the defenders of the people, and ask for one.
Well, Mr. Speaker, at this time, the Canadian people are looking at the official opposition; and they will be strict in their judgment.
It is hardly possible that only the team on the official opposition benches could be right in this country.
I might quote many texts at this point, and I shall quote a few. I did not want to quote so many, but I see that they have a considerable impact on my friends opposite.
This is what another Conservative member said on January 23, 1961, when the Leader of the Opposition was the all-powerful prime minister of Canada:
Yet, I think that a referendum would not be necessary, and that It is up to the government to give the Canadian people that distinctive national flag they want so much.
That was what a Conservative member told his government.


Mr. Macaluso:: Who said that?


Yvon Dupuis: The Conservative member for Richmond-Wolfe, Florent Dubois. When people realized that he had no influence on the prime minister they did not re-elect him, saying: It is useless to send him to the House of Commons because the prime minister will not listen to him.
We have some gems. Of course, up to now, they were ignored by our hon. friends opposite.
Another Conservative member said this when his party was in power in 1961:
It would certainly not be surprising to see Canada provided shortly with a national flag.
That one still trusted his leader. And he added:
Our government will then have the opportunity to choose an essentially distinctive emblem in accordance with the legitimate aspirations of the majority of Canadians.

Canadian Flag
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we are saying. This hon. member was surely defeated because his constituents realized he had no influence on his leader.
That was the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane, Mr. Alfred Belzile, our lamented colleague.
Mr. Speaker, we can of course give other examples. Mr. Nasserden, member for Ros-thern, said for instance:
I think it can be said that there is no matter that is of more interest and importance to Canadians than the matter of a distinctive Canadian flag.
I have it in English, I could read the English text but it is good to read the translation once in a while to show them the advantage of being able to speak both languages.
In a few more years we shall be celebrating our centennial here in Canada and at that time it would be well if all Canadians could share that measure of unity that may be enhanced by a distinctive Canadian flag.
Yes it would be a good thing.
The man who said those words is a member who sits on the other side but who will not be there long when his electors find out how he has changed his mind.


Mr. Fane:: How funny can you get?


Yvon Dupuis: You find that funny? There is nothing funnier than seeing the Conservatives caught in the very trap in which they wanted to catch others.
Mr. Speaker, we have many more historic quotations. For instance, our friends opposite ask: How is it that the Liberals, who are in power, want to decide upon a flag?
We did not change our minds. Our Canadian high commissioner in England, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, had this to say in 1961, and it is exactly what the Liberals who are in office, are saying today, although they were in opposition then:
-in closing I say that, under the existing law of parliament, by virtue of the powers of this government, if we are to have a distinctive national flag, it is up to the government either by the establishment of a committee or by some other means, to give it to us. I believe that those who spent much of their time criticizing the former administration instead of giving us a distinctive natonal flag, had better address their claims and their representations to the government-
-Conservative, at that time.
-that sits to the right of Mr. Speaker.
And Mr. Chevrier added:
If they did that-

The Conservatives-
-we soon might have a distinctive national flag which, I think, the great majority of the Canadian people wants.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, that we have not changed. But they have. When we were in the opposition, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) said a week ago, the then leader of the opposition in 1960-61 and 1962 said in the house, in press conferences, on television, in his electoral program which I have now: If you elect the Liberal party, if you give the country a Liberal government, they will give Canada a national distinctive flag which will not be mistaken for the emblem of any other country.
That was the promise made by the leader of the Liberal party when he was sitting on the other side of the house, and during the last election campaign, that if he was elected to office, as prime minister, and as an honest and sincere man, he would submit to the house a distinctive national flag for the Canadian people.


Alfred Dryden Hales: What about the second flag?


Yvon Dupuis: You should begin by settling the first problem. You are so mixed up with the first-we will speak about the second later.
What do we see today? The right hon. Leader of the Opposition, the former prime minister, asks us for a referendum, a plebiscite; he is seconded by his lieutenant, his brave lieutenant of the old guard, the former minister of veterans affairs (Mr. Churchill).


An hon. Member:: We believe in democracy. [Translation]


Yvon Dupuis: You believe in democracy but you are attempting, as a small opposition group, to thwart all the other parties, to thwart public opinion and you even contradict the statements you made here yourselves when you sat on this side of the house. You pay lipservice to democracy but by your actions you show that you are anti-democratic.
At present, as I said, the Leader of the Opposition is asking for a plebiscite. Why? Because he does not want this government to take its responsibilities.
When he was prime minister he did not want any plebiscite and that was established at the time of the introduction of Bill C-60 on January 24, 1961. We have recalled, after the

hon. member for Acadia, that the only opportunity-and this is very important-the only opportunity for the government to hold a referendum without any cost to the country, was on the occasion of the decennial census which happens every decade. Now, the last time we had a decennial census was in 1961 and if the present Leader of the Opposition had been sincere, he would then have called for a plebiscite at the same time as the decennial census. That would not have cost the country anything.


An hon. Member:: He is not sincere.


Yvon Dupuis: He could have added to the questions asked from door to door one or two additional questions to ask the Canadian people: Are you for or against a national distinctive flag? Are you for a distinctive national anthem?
But when he was prime minister, while he could have taken that opportunity-which happens only once every ten years-to hold a referendum at no cost to the taxpayers, the Leader of the Opposition said "no" to his supporters, he said "no" to the Canadian people and, today, as an irresponsible man, he is asking other people to do what he was not man enough to do himself when he was prime minister of Canada.
At this time I am not playing politics. I am merely quoting facts as they were put on the record. I am only discussing things that we have seen, that our hon. Conservative friends can check up in Hansard because they have a short memory.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I wish to tell you this.
Today we have the pleasure of realizing that the majority of members of this house are in favour of a distinctive national flag. We have the satisfaction of seeing that, for once in the history of Canada, a man, having become Prime Minister, has kept his promise to propose a distinctive national flag, the one he has proposed to this house before the whole nation, to which he had made that promise.
And today it is our privilege to see, rising above party politics, members of the New Democratic party, Social Credit members and those from the Ralliement Creditiste, and for once I agree with my hon. friend the member for Villeneuve: We are all Canadians above political partisanship.
We want a distinctive national flag which would not hurt anybody. And, as my hon. friend from Acadia said-and I want to re-
Canadian Flag
mind him of what he said, because he was on the telephone:

Surely an artist In designing a flag should adhere to simplicity and present a design that is well known and recognizably representative of Canada, one that would be recognized and accepted the world over. I think a flag must be emblematic of the country it represents so that it will not be mistaken for the flag of another country.
That was said by the hon. member for Acadia who was on the phone a few moments ago.
I think a flag must be emblematic of the country it represents so that it will not be mistaken for the flag of another country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Yvon Dupuis: I have new things to tell you.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said one flag, not two, and that is what you are attempting to present to Canada today.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Acadia says: "One flag for Canada". We too want a distinctive national flag. That is what you now have before you, but you refuse to adopt the resolution.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You present one distinctive flag. Your suggestion is two flags.


Yvon Dupuis: And the hon. member continues as follows:

As I mentioned before, the flag should be of simple design. We would not want anything bizarre or complicated which would detract from the flag and create confusion as to what it represents. I think a truly distinctive flag would bring greater unity in Canada and that all Canadians would pay their allegiance to it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One flag; not two flags.


Yvon Dupuis: I think that instead of shouting "One flag" the hon. member should see his leader and ask for one group in his own party.

And the hon. member continues as follows: [Text]
I think a truly distinctive flag would bring greater unity in Canada and that all Canadians would pay allegiance to it if a design were brought in and presented by the government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Canadian Flag


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One design, one flag.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Yvon Dupuis: I notice that the doctor sitting next to the hon. member for Acadia has lost heart and has left the house. He left the hon. member for Acadia to his disease.
And I continue-besides, I do not see why the hon. member for Acadia should be so angry, because I totally agree with him; he was right in 1961.
I continue-

Do you understand English?
The idea of a distinctive flag for Canada has been suggested over the years-
Indeed.
-and the question has had the continuing support of the armed forces.
Indeed. I think he should repeat that to his hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Read the next two sentences.


Yvon Dupuis: You want me to continue? I will speak, then. Listen.
The union jack has been suggested as our flag. A long time ago I learned in school how the union jack originated-


An hon. Member:: Don't criticize it. Your friends burned it the other night.


Yvon Dupuis: Some people accuse Canadians, this government and politicians on both sides of the house of becoming too nationalistic. I think that is an exaggerated accusation. I believe that Canadians should be able to speak their piece without being accused of being anti-American, anti-British, and so on.


Some hon. Members:: Who said that?


Yvon Dupuis: The hon. member for Acadia, who was answering the phone a few minutes ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Yvon Dupuis: I agree with the hon. member. I like him and support him. He was speaking in this debate as a real Canadian, not as a Tory, and he said this:
We are Canadians, we speak from a Canadian point of view and this fact should be accepted by other countries.
I am certain there would be greater acceptance, particularly in the United States, if we had a truly distinctive flag.
Who said that?
[Mr. Dupuis.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked, "Who said that?" I would like to say, on a point of order, that I said it. I said that Canada and Canadians generally wanted a truly distinctive flag.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But they want one flag-not two, not three flags, as was suggested by the Prime Minister in Hansard when speaking earlier on this question. I say, and I said then, that Canadians and Canada want one flag, not two and not three.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Little Jack Horner is in the corner.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
I think we should allow the Minister without Portfolio to continue.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house, the country and the press gallery-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would draw Your Honour's attention to the clock. The minister has now been speaking-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought you wanted us on this side to speak.


Mr. MacEwan:: You would all do well in the barnyard, anyway.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton South is rising on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: I am not too sure that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) would be in order, even if he rose to his feet. He has a lot to say from that particular seat and I would call his attention to the fact that he is out of order speaking from that seat. We all realize it is a seat he would like to occupy. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Clerk of the House will confirm the fact that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) started his remarks at a quarter after nine.


Mr. Habel:: Are you keeping the time?


Donald MacInnis: Yes, I am watching the clock. If I am wrong in the premise I am putting forward, Mr. Speaker, the Chair is at liberty to correct me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It is the
custom in this chamber for the Clerk to advise the Speaker when a member begins

and to advise him when his time expires. It is the duty of the Chair to allow a few extra minutes, if he considers it proper, to an hon. member who has been interrupted on a number of occasions. I would hope that in this particular case the Chair will be able to be as fair as it was in the previous case.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the same privilege will be accorded to other hon. members, although it was denied this evening to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner). The Minister without Portfolio has now gone 10 minutes beyond his time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I do not want to enter into any argument with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis); but I should advise him that extra time was not denied the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner). I would advise the hon. member that he began his remarks at 8.28, his time expired at 9.08, and he was advised by the Chair that his time had expired at 9.16. In the opinion of the Chair the hon. member was given a very generous allowance of time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, as I have been mentioned in this discussion. While I do not in any way wish to curtail the remarks of the Minister without Portfolio, I would point out that I was allowed five minutes extra time. I believe, if I accept the word of my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the minister has now gone 10 minutes over time. I think the Clerk should rise and report to you, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister without Portfolio started and when his time expired.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my friends may suffer, but what amazes me most is that they suffer from hearing their own words, and that is what is amazing and that the people do not understand.
What does my hon. friend for Acadia think of a truly distinctive national flag? Listen to this:

I think that any attempt to include the union jack or red ensign in the flag would merely degrade two well known and honourable flags.
Who said that?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Yvon Dupuis: That was said by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Homer) when his
Canadian Flag
party was in power. He did not say that tonight.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You didn't give me enough time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must advise the Minister without Portfolio that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the remarks that have been made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I want to make it plain that I do not object to his quoting my remarks of 1961. I still stand by everything I said then. But I do not like to hear those remarks twisted, as they were tonight in the house. I want to read to you-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: -just one paragraph to
show-
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Batten): Order. If the hon. gentleman feels he has been misquoted, he has the right to make an explanation; but I should point out to the hon. member that under the rules of this house he is only permitted to explain that part which he considers to be misunderstood. He is not permitted to introduce any new matter. Perhaps there is no need for me to read the appropriate citation to the hon. member at this time; but if he goes outside these bounds, I shall be obliged to do so.


Edward Nasserden: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is what I said:
Whatever the design finally approved by parlia-merit and the Canadian people, it should be a reminder to us of our beginnings as a nation. It should reflect the part that Great Britain played in the development of our institutions. It should also reflect the personality of Canada as it has developed under the enriching influence of French culture. But more than that, it must also reflect the personality of a nation having that third dimension, that of those who chose Canadian citizenship after the destiny of Canada was decided in the articles of confederation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Withdraw your distortion now.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member, in spite of your warning, did not say that I had misquoted him. He quoted other excerpts of his speech, and that is out of order.

Canadian Flag
If you have authorized the hon. member to quote another excerpt of his speech, I do not see why I could not do so myself.
It reads as follows:
-a referendum would only emphasize that division rather than creating unity in the country at the present time.
That is what the hon. member (Mr. Nasser-den) said. Do you have enough or do you want more?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Yvon Dupuis: May I ask the unanimous consent of the house to go on with my speech?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think the procedure we are now following is quite irregular. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) has made something of an explanation, as he is permitted to do, if one follows citation 142 which is to be found at page 124 of Beauchesne. I shall read that citation:
A member who, during a debate, has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; but he must not introduce new matter or endeavour to strengthen by new arguments his former position which he alleges to have been misunderstood, or to reply to other members.
In view of this I would suggest to both hon. members that we let the argument rest there.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to question your ruling.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. member has raised the question as to what was my stand with regard to a referendum at that particular time. I say I have not changed my mind in that regard. At that time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I am in some difficulty with regard to knowing what is the position of the hon. member in this debate, whether he has already spoken on this particular subamendment. If he has, then I can only resort to citation 142, and I have given him sufficient privilege there. If he has not already spoken he can reserve his remarks until he does.


Edward Nasserden: I have made my position very clear, I think, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to wonder whether I would ever get the floor tonight. In the

remaining moments left to me this evening I should like to begin my remarks with what are my sincere comments on this issue. This evening has been quite interesting and I am sure the gallery must have been regaled with the antics of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis). After seeing and listening to him there is no question in my mind why he remains a minister without a portfolio. He began his remarks with very profuse congratulations to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) for the very high level of his remarks this afternoon. What a pity he does not follow that rule himself. The speeches he delivers in this house-indeed, the type of speech I have heard him deliver on each occasion he speaks in the house-are anything but on a high level. He chose to quote a number of references from Hansard of 1961, which purported to be statements by hon. members in this party in which they had stated that they were in favour of a distinctive national flag. I do not think there is any conflict there, any more than there is now. I am sure that most hon. members in this house are in favour of a distinctive national flag. I say "a distinctive national flag", not two or three flags as proposed by hon. members opposite. It is not a question whether or not we are opposed to or in favour of a distinctive national flag. This is not the point at issue right now. What we are opposed to, and I think what Canadians generally across the country are opposed to, is the anaemic, insipid design which has been proposed by this government. If a flag is to be distinctive and is to be Canadian, then it must be one which meets with the approval of all Canadians.
I was also interested in the new theory of democracy propounded by the Minister without Portfolio when he stated that he thought that because government members and those who support them were in the majority, the opposition should simply quit talking and allow the resolution to come to a vote. What an example of how little he knows about parliamentary government. In my opinion it is a disgrace for a minister of the crown to stand on his feet in this house and put forward such theories and express such thoughts.
This debate, which has gone on for the past few days, has certainly generated a certain amount of heat. Perhaps tonight was the best example of how much heat has been generated. I am not going to make any comments about the light that was shed, but it was at least most entertaining. If the debate has done nothing else I think it is making Canadians

across this country aware of our history. It is making Canadians aware of what a flag means to this country. It is making Canadians think about designs for a flag. As a result of this debate I think there will be a greater participation on the part of the Canadian people in the national affairs of the country. I do not suggest that the people who have spoken in this debate are accurately reflecting the views of all Canadians, but most certainly those who have spoken have made statements and expressed feelings which I am sure are expressed by somebody. Even the comments made by the Minister without Portfolio will be received, I dare say, by somebody in this country. I think it is the responsibility of members of parliament to express these feelings, because if we are to be a true reflection of the attitudes and thoughts of Canadians across the country, then those attitudes and thoughts must be expressed in this house.
It has been suggested that Canadians generally are getting tired of this debate. I am sure most hon. members discussed this issue over the Labour day week end with their constituents. I am sure that most of our constituents feel that the debate has gone on far longer than it needed to go on. But at the same time those of my constituents who have said to me that they think the debate has gone on too long have followed that remark up very quickly by saying: "But you simply must not allow this insipid design to be passed". So what other method is there open to the opposition? What other method is there open to a member of parliament to prevent the government's foisting this folly upon the Canadian people, other than debating the matter in the house, and debating it to the point where the government realize that the people of this country are not going to be happy with this design?
Another thing which has contributed to this feeling among Canadians is the fact that from the time the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made his first statement to the Canadian Legion convention in Winnipeg, this issue has been played up by the newspapers across the country. Every question asked in the house about this matter, even a simple question which perhaps took up two minutes of the time of the house, received front page headlines day after day after day. I do not criticize the newspapers for this because their job is to sell newspapers and they do that the best way they can. But none the less the feeling has got abroad that nothing has been done in this house since early April, when the Prime Minister spoke to the Legion con-
Canadian Flag
vention in Winnipeg. That is not the case. The flag resolution was introduced considerably later than that, and I find it rather strange, now that the resolution is before the house and is being debated, that all of a sudden the newspapers find there is no copy in it; that it sells no newspapers and they do not want to discuss it at all. These sensational headlines with which we have been greeted day after day since before the resolution was introduced have certainly created in the minds of the people across the country the impression that this issue was on the floor of the House of Commons long before it was in fact presented to the house.
I think that if Canadians are tired of the debate on this issue they are even more tired of this government-this dismal, abject failure of a government. To quote the words of Peter Newman it is a quiet, grey failure of a government which has fumbled and failed to bring to a conclusion every policy it has introduced in this house. It has failed to come to grips with the economic problems of this country, and it is really the economic problems which are paramount. In fact, the government is trying to cover up the real difficulties with this issue. I remember, when we were the government, how they ridiculed almost every measure we brought forward, but it is strange today that those measures which we introduced have now become law in this country without change. Indeed, they have been carried on very proudly by some members of the present government.
When the present government's minister of finance presented the three budgets, which met with some considerable agitation, certainly the image of decisiveness disappeared and, I might add, never returned. I am sure members will recall how the present government boasted that it would improve our relations with the United States. I recall reading a comment in a New York newspaper to the effect that if the Pearson government is a friend of the United States, who needs enemies. I recall how the government said it would improve relations with the provinces. We only have to think back to the measures that have been introduced respecting dominion-provincial relations to realize that-


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to a point of order. I wonder whether you would ask the hon. member to relate his remarks to the resolution now before us.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Of course I am happy to do so. The subamendment deals with the question of national unity, and all the things

Canadian Flag
I have mentioned are part and parcel of that subject. Can you deny that relations with provinces, including the province of Quebec, constitute a question of national unity?
I am sure that the majority of hon. members in this house are aware of the so-called quiet revolution taking place in Quebec. I do not think we need fear it. I think perhaps it is a good thing for this country, because these people are attempting to find their place in confederation and do the things necessary for them to be a part and remain a part of this country. The problems that beset the province of Quebec are largely economical and must be dealt with by economic measures. This government has failed miserably to introduce anything that could possibly be of benefit to the province of Quebec, other than by continuing the policies initiated by the former government, particularly as they relate to ARDA.
I wonder what happened to the policy in respect to two ministers of agriculture. I suggest everything that this government has done has tended to create division, including the establishment of the bilingualism and bicul-turalism probe. This government seems bound to aggravate and destroy the unity that existed when it came into office, and in order to cover up its failure to deal with these problems it has attempted to divert attention by proposing the two flag resolution. This government has attempted to confuse the issue, and to convince the citizens of the province of Quebec that it is doing great things for them, when in reality it is doing nothing to solve the economic problems that beset that province.
Very frequently during this debate we have heard hon. members opposite ask for cessation of the debate. They have often said, bring this to a vote and let us end it all; let the members of the House of Commons decide this issue. They make these statements as though such a decision would really solve anything, surely those members are not so naive as to think that if a vote was taken in this house it would end the problem. Certainly they should know, and would know if they had
gone home over the last week end, that a vote would not solve the problem or end the debate. It would end the debate in the House of Commons, but not the debate that is taking place across this country.
Mr. Speaker, one of the best editorials I have read on this particular subject appeared in the Ottawa Journal of August 31, 1964, and I should like to put it on record. The editorial, headed "Not Speed but a Flag", reads as follows:
The Commons is confusing the challenge the flag debate presents.
The real task is to produce a flag that will unite a nation.
Whether that takes a month or four months is relatively unimportant.
An error is not less so if it is done quickly.
Mr. Pearson speaks of a month's debate over-all; Mr. Diefenbaker speaks of three months in committee plus a final Commons debate on approval.
We must be wary now lest we think the goal is simply to narrow that time gap. The goal is a flag that will please most Canadians.
Mr. Diefenbaker is not resisting a short limited debate just to keep the Liberal government from doing the country's business. Last Thursday (Hansard, page 7343) he promptly supported Mr. Knowles' urging that the government devote two days a week to other business while the flag debate lasts. Mr. Favreau, for Mr. Pearson, would not accept this.
Mr. Diefenbaker refuses to limit debate for it is the one weapon that might oblige Mr. Pearson to produce a more acceptable flag. (We've met mighty few people of any political persuasion who really like the present suggestion.)
If Mr. Pearson came forward with a design more adequately representing the nation's wishes the opposition would vote it through to happy fulfilment in weeks, not months.
The obstacle to peaceful solution is the present design, not the debate schedule.
Whatever flag parliament eventually passes should be honoured by us all. The country's impatience is not for any new flag but a new flag it wants. Reasonable debate and the devotion of compromise can produce such a flag.
We've had enough of Liberals saying Tories are anti-French, and Tories saying Liberals are selling out to the French.
Let's go on with the business of the country, and finding an acceptable flag, at one and the same time-for the two can't be separated now.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it 10.30?
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Wednesday, September 9, 1964