1964-12-16

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a communication has been received, which is as follows:
Ottawa, December 2, 1964
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 2nd December, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable house attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1965.


[Stage Direction]
It being eleven minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 3. 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the pleasure to inform the house that I have received the following telegram:
The Honourable Alan Macnaughton,
Speaker of the House of Commons, Ottawa.
I am deeply grateful Mr. Speaker for your charming telegram of good wishes.
Winston Churchill



PRIVILEGE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday the hon. member for Danforth complained about the fact that the Minister of Justice had not made a statement with reference to the Marcotte case. I understand that in the interim a decision has been reached by the cabinet and a public statement made by the Minister of Justice. It seems to me that the House of Commons is entitled to first hand information on a matter of such far reaching importance as this, and I think it only proper that on motions a statement should be made by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice with respect to this case.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith.
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, after my colleagues who also sat on the flag committee, I wish to
express my congratulations to the member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) for the manner he chairmanned such an important committee as the flag committee.
I also wish to express my gratitude to every member of that committee and state how glad I was to work with them on that committee. When he asked me to sit on that committee, my leader greatly honoured me, together with the citizens of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, whom I am pleased to represent in the House of Commons.
Like other members before me, I wish to say that, once I had accepted to sit on the flag committee, I dedicated myself to this task with the utmost sincerity and attended the various meetings feeling completely free and willing to make the best possible choice for a flag. I refrained from speaking to the Leader of the Opposition for the duration of our proceedings.
I want to say right away that no order was given to me, directly or indirectly, as to the position I was to take at the meetings of the committee. If instructions or orders had been given, either directly or indirectly, I would simply have resigned, because I felt absolutely free to act as I saw fit and to the best of my ability.
I would not wish to review the whole report submitted the other day by my colleague, the member for Humber-St. George's. However, I would like to draw the attention of the house to some of the resolutions or decisions arrived at during our meetings.
First of all, I wish to say that the result of the vote, recommending a national plebiscite speaks for itself. I would also like to point out the fact that all our discussions were centred on the adoption of a single flag.
Subparagraph (b) of the fifth paragraph of the report clearly indicates that we all agreed, since the adoption of a single national flag was passed by 14 to 0.
I also wish to point out to the house that throughout the sittings of the committee, which lasted about five weeks, and during the debate in this house, government members sitting on the committee made much of the three-leaf flag. Referring to tradition, they pointed out that the three red maple leaves

Canadian Flag
on a single stem were the only emblem which could appear on our national flag. However, after such a lengthy discussion, they all voted against a national flag with three maple leaves. Many suspicions are aroused and we are prompted to ask ourselves if it was not previously arranged before the establishment of the committee, that the flag contain a single maple leaf. But I will not dwell on this subject and will immediately refer to other considerations.
However, I must emphasize most especially the resolution introduced on October 22, 1964, which reads as follows:

-that this committee select only one national flag, and that such selected flag be recommended for adoption by parliament.

Obviously, up to that time, it was our intention to select a single flag for Canada; yet, the resolution now before us calls for the adoption of two flags.
It is well known that I have always been in favour of a single flag, as is my party. All my efforts were directed toward that end during the discussions of the flag committee.
I must admit, however, that I was sorely disappointed at the final meeting when another resolution asking for the adoption of a second flag, that of a foreign country, was submitted to the committee.
I like clearcut attitudes and I propose, before going ahead with my remarks and to avoid interruptions from my friends opposite, to clearly establish my stand on the national flag issue. My views are based on information I gathered in two questionnaires completed by my constituents.
Before going any further, as I said, I put the question to the members of the committee during its deliberations. Here was my question: Why adopt two Canadian flags? What is the purpose-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -of having two Canadian flags? Give me the name of another commonwealth nation which has two flags, if you can. Why go against the aspirations-


Mr. Speaker:: The house is now considering the matter of a plebiscite and not that of one, two, five, six or seven flags. I would therefore ask the hon. member to deal with the plebiscite.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your direction, but I was laying down the basis of my argument to justify my position

toward the plebiscite, and as some members opposite are anxious to hear my views on the matter, I want to say forthwith that I shall vote in favour of a plebiscite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In this, I do respect the will of my electors. I have here before me a questionnaire I sent to my electors and in which I asked the following question:
Do you believe it would be preferable to hold a referendum on this matter?
There were 216 answers favouring a referendum, whereas 155 were against. I am therefore respecting in every respect the wishes of my constituents and to those who dare shout in the house, I would say: Stand up and tell us how you intend to express your opinion in regard to the plebiscite.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will go on maintaining order as you have done so well up to now and that you will pay no more attention than I do myself to those interjections from the other side of the house.
In the event that the plebiscite should be refused and that we are called upon to vote on the choice of a distinctive flag, I will act as I did during the proceedings of the committee and I will vote for the flag with a maple leaf on a white field and two red stripes. However, I want to add that, as far as the second part of the resolution is concerned, I shall support neither the red ensign nor the union jack, and I would ask hon. members, especially those of the province of Quebec, to make their position known as clearly, honestly and sincerely as I am doing now. That will take only 30 seconds of their time. I therefore ask the members from Quebec to rise, if they still have the courage to do so, if they are not entirely silenced by party discipline, and to tell their constituents how they intend to vote. I am convinced that the constituents of hon. members on the other side of the house would be interested to know the latter's views on that matter.
Since committee meetings began I have received a number of representations and letters, which I forwarded to the committee chairman, and which I also acknowledged.
It is interesting to note that I have received until now-the last letter reached me yesterday-a total of 100 letters from various parts of the country. For instance, I got 28 from the province of Quebec and they are all in favour of a distinctive flag. Out of 34 letters from the province of Ontario, 14 were in favour of a distinctive flag, 18 for the red

ensign while two of my correspondents would like to see a mixture of both so as to show our dual culture. Out of 14 letters from British Columbia three are in favour of a distinctive flag, nine for the red ensign and two for the union jack with the fleur-de-lis. I received eight letters from Alberta, out of which one was in favour of a distinctive flag and seven for the red ensign. In short, out of those 100 letters, 52 were in favour of a distinctive national flag, 44 in favour of the red ensign, while 14 were for the red ensign with the fleur-de-lis.
All this simply indicates that opinions vary concerning the choice of a flag for Canada. I am saying that by giving the people of Canada an opportunity to express their opinion on this question, we would simply acknowledge a privilege of which they would like to avail themselves. In urging a plebiscite there is no question of trying to hide facts or to prevent the people of Canada from expressing their views but merely of giving all Canadian citizens an opportunity to make their opinions known to their members of parliament and to the government, so that there will be no danger of causing a rift in the nation.
During the discussions before the appointment of the committee as well as during those that followed, members of parliament, especially those from the province of Quebec, said that the question was one of national unity and that the adoption of a flag would promote national unity.
During the proceedings of the committee, you should have heard certain members of the province of Quebec declaim their speeches and tell us how much national unity would be damaged or hurt, if we were to adopt a flag in which the union jack or the red ensign would be included.
I suggest that Liberal members should read in particular the speech made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, on February 5, 1896. I also suggest that they should read the recommendations made by Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King and Louis St. Laurent, who are considered the most brilliant prime ministers Canada ever had. They will see that, far from discrediting the union jack and the red ensign, those former prime ministers recognized and stated that there could be no Canadian national flag which would not include the union jack or the red ensign.
I ask my hon. friends opposite why they now deny what their leaders themselves have always professed?
Canadian Flag


Mr. Drouin:: That is not true.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes says: "That is not true". I suggest he read page 2096 of the Hansard for November 13, 1945, where he will find the words spoken by Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.
But there is an authority even closer to us who gave us his appreciation on national unity. I am speaking of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who made an explicit statement at a press conference in Quebec as published by the Quebec Chronicle on February 2, 1962, and I quote:

He warned that if the union jack is dropped completely from a Canadian flag this might cause a deep rift among Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, our party has not advocated anything else since the beginning of the debate, and it is not because I wish to be recognized as a supporter of the union jack or the red ensign that I quoted these words; on the contrary, I only wish to allow the house to judge by itself the soundness and value of the allegations of our friends opposite.
We were also told that the fleur-de-lis had no signification for French Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must confess that I am wondering about the relevancy of the remarks of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot in connection with the amendment now being considered.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, it is simply because a plebiscite was suggested in which the Canadian people would be asked to decide on the symbols of the French race as well as those of the English race, and this is the reason why I am presently making these remarks.
We were told that the fleur-de-lis had no meaning for French Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -and I will point out, Mr. Speaker, that if you read the speech delivered by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Cadieux), you will find that he followed the very course of action I am advocating at this moment. Furthermore, knowing you have always discharged your duties with impartiality, I do not see how you could deny me a privilege which has been granted to other members.

Canadian Flag


Vincent Drouin: The hon. member for Terrebonne spoke before the amendment was proposed.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, you will admit that it is difficult for a member to follow closely the text or the notes he prepared, while members from the other side of the house are continually interrupting.
With your leave, I should like to say this: "If you have the courage to stand up and give us your impressions, do so"; you will at least gain the admiration and confidence of your constituents.


Vincent Drouin: We are so convinced that we are ready to vote at once.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Just tell the house how you will vote on the second part of the resolution. Are you going to vote for the union jack?


Mr. Girouard:: Go on, say it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have nothing to conceal. We do not intend to deprive the people of anything. All we want is that the flag which will be flown throughout Canada will be acceptable to every part of the country and, in my opinion, a plebiscite is the best and the fairest way of allowing the Canadian people to vote on the flag issue.
Mr. Speaker, it is claimed that Canada must have a flag within two years because such was the promise made by the present government.
Let our hon. friends opposite tell us what their government has done about appointing a minister for eastern agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must admit to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot that I fail to see how the comments he is now making could be truly relevant to the matter before us.


An hon. Member:: He was out of order right from the start.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to give an opportunity-


An hon. Member:: He is not "pertinent"; he is "patineux"-skating.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to give the members who are not courageous enough to speak up, the opportunity of showing that the only thing they can do is to interrupt the one who has the floor and who is making remarks of which they do not approve.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I can but repeat that the only purpose of the Conservative party in advocating a plebiscite is to afford the Canadian people an opportunity to express their views-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard a member on the government side shout: "Filibuster".
It must be remembered that if it had not been for this filibuster, Canada would now be endowed with the three maple leaf flag, which flag even the Grits have disavowed, after having sung its praise for at least three months.
This was the result of the attitude of our group. If, on the other hand, people were allowed to speak their minds, several would stand up and express their own aspirations and those of their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I repeat that I shall vote for the plebiscite, for I am convinced that it is the best way to provide the people with an opportunity to state their views.
If the plebiscite is turned down, and so that nobody will be able to say that I have opposed a distinctive flag, although this flag is not entirely to my taste, I shall vote for the recommendation of the committee.
I challenge Liberal hon. members of the province of Quebec to give their views on that matter. But, as far as I am concerned, I shall vote neither for the red ensign nor for the union jack.
Again, I ask hon. members opposite to have enough courage to rise and put their views on record.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
A while ago the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot imputed feelings and opinions to Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent concerning the flag issue. I would like to refer to Hansard-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This is not a question of privilege but an argument. If the hon. member wants to set forth his point, he will be able to do so by taking part in the debate, tText]
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Danforlh:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which concerns all members of this house.
I would like to point out that with the present speaker, we have just broken a record in the house. It seems that the fact is worth mentioning: This is the 200th speech given on the same subject. It is like a hockey game; when Maurice Richard scored his 500th goal the game was stopped so that the puck could be presented to him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: If you allow me to state my question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should come to the point quickly because there does not seem to be a question of privilege in what he has just said.
On the other hand, the Chair realizes that the hon. member should have the opportunity to submit his argument.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege deals precisely with what is going on today for the first time in the House of Commons. I should like us to confer the "Order of filibuster" upon the hon. member who is about to deliver the 200th speech on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The alleged question of privilege raised by the hon. member is not any more legitimate than the one raised by the hon. member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes. I recognize the hon. member for Kent (Ont.).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I feel the hon. member who raised the question of privilege should have enough knowledge of what takes place in this house to know that he did not have a question of privilege, and that he was interrupting the debate on a phony point. He also stood up while you were on your feet, defying the Speaker. He has been doing so constantly ever since he came to this House of Commons.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to point out through you to the hon. member for Lapointe that in rising to speak on this question I make no apology to the house or to him. I want the record to show how I feel about the flag question and this debate, and 20220-6S3i
Canadian Flag
how the constituents I represent feel about the flag question and this debate. I intend to support the amendment because it will give the people in my riding and across Canada an opportunity to express their views. Once those views have been expressed perhaps some of the members of this house will realize that they have not been presenting the views of the people they represent but rather their own views when speaking about this emotional and delicate subject.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the levity of the remarks coming from the opposite side of this chamber, some of us feel that this is a very serious and emotional matter which affects all people in Canada and has a direct bearing on this so-called unity the government has been trying to promote. Some of the actions of the government are having exactly the opposite effect across Canada.
In my riding we have residents of both basic Anglo-Saxon and French origins, of whom we are very proud. We do not have any bilingual or bicultural problems because we all went to school together, grew up together and work together, and are proud of each other's culture, heritage and efforts as Canadians. That is as it should be.
A plebiscite is necessary on this flag question because of the great diversity of opinion which exists in Canada, and certainly in that part of southwestern Ontario I represent. I am sure that most Canadians want a distinctive national flag. The question is not whether we want a distinctive flag but, as we all appreciate, what symbols should appear on such a flag.
As we have heard today, whenever we stand in our places to put opinions on the record we hear charges of filibuster and charges that we are prolonging this debate. How can those accusers justify that criticism in view of the fact that during the 60 days the government has been proposing a distinctive Canadian flag it has wholeheartedly proposed two distinctive flags? That fact in my opinion justifies the belief of the Conservative party that the people of Canada should have a choice as to what should be Canada's distinctive national flag.
A great deal of criticism has been expressed through the press and on the radio about the character and length of this debate, suggesting that perhaps nothing new can be said regardless of the number of speakers taking part. Some of that criticism may be justifiable; we all make mistakes, and none of us is per-

Canadian Flag
feet. However, anyone who runs down parliament is certainly not doing this country any service whatsoever. The fact that there has been a difference of opinion as to the flag to be chosen, resulting in the production of a second distinctive national flag within a few months, justifies the stand taken by this party in this house. While it is true that ordinary citizens, men and women whom I am very proud to call my neighbours and friends, are sometimes confused, saddened and disgusted by what has transpired during the course of this debate, surely they should have an opportunity to hear the arguments on all sides of the question so as to be able to make up their own minds and decide by plebiscite what flag should be adopted.
In the early stages of this debate it is true that perhaps most hon. members of this house felt we had reached an impasse. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that when the solution of a committee was arrived at there were sighs of relief on both sides of the house and throughout the entire country. We felt that here was the solution we had been seeking for days; here was an opportunity for members of the house, working together on an all-party basis, working earnestly and in harmony, to provide a solution for this thorny problem that would meet with the favour of parliament and the country at large.
I know that my colleagues who were members of that committee went to its meetings with a desire to come up with a compromise flag that would settle this problem once and for all throughout Canada. I assume that the members of all other parties who took part in the deliberations of the committee went to its meetings with the same desire. We are all aware that the committee worked hard day after day to resolve this very problem. The citizens of this country, like all members of the house, thought it was the aim of the committee to come up with a compromise that would take into consideration the views expressed in every part of the house, and that the committee would try to decide upon a flag that would be acceptable to all the people of Canada; not to a political party, not to a certain section of Canada, but a flag that would represent what all members of the house were striving to obtain, a flag of which all Canadians could be proud. We know that the decision made by the committee would provide a flag for Canada for years to come, and this was why its deliberations were so important and why the committee was regarded so seriously by all members of parliament.

We feel that a plebiscite is now necessary, Mr. Speaker, because in my personal opinion the committee did not come up with the compromise that was expected of them. As far as I can ascertain, and I have followed the debate very closely, there were three basic divisions in the house. First of all there was the government's proposal of a flag with three maple leaves on a white background. There was the proposal on this side of the house that the union jack should be retained as part of any new flag. There was the proposal that the fleur-de-lis of France should have a prominent place on the flag. There was also the proposal that there should be a single maple leaf. It was my feeling, and I am sure that of many members of the house, that the committee would take into consideration the desires expressed in all parts of the house and come up with a composite flag embodying the principles that had been advocated for days, a flag perfect in its composition and pleasing in design, a flag that would be acceptable to members in all parts of the house and to people in every corner of this great nation.
Not only were many members of the house disappointed with the committee's recommendation, Mr. Speaker, but there was tremendous disappointment throughout the entire nation that such a flag did not materialize. Indeed, when we learned following the sittings of the committee that such a flag design had been submitted there was absolute dismay. We felt that such a flag was free from any political implications, that it embodied the principles expressed in all parts of the house, and we personally felt after seeing it that it was a flag that could be justifiably displayed with pride in every part of this nation because on it were the traditional sysmbols of the two great founding races and the traditional symbol of one red maple leaf representing the very Canada we are trying to preserve.
There is a play on words, Mr. Speaker, involved in any consideration of the report of the committee. One can either say "what a compromise" or "what compromise". This is one of the basic issues we are faced with today. Many of us feel that the suggested flag was no compromise but simply an alteration. We still have a flag of one party for the nation. This is not what the people of Canada want. This is what we feel is wrong so far as the flag proposed by the committee is concerned.
In assessing the whole situation we could be wrong, Mr. Speaker, and all we are ask-



3. 1S64

[Stage Direction]
ing is that the government give the people of Canada the opportunity to indicate whether the government is wrong in its assumption that the people want the one red maple leaf flag, or that we are wrong in assuming that the people of this great nation do not want such a flag. Such a course seems completely justifiable and fair.
We have heard that a plebiscite can be too expensive. We have heard that the mechanics of a plebiscite are such that it would be a cumbersome procedure. We have been told that it is the function of parliament to make decisions, and that there should be no need for a plebiscite. But, Mr. Speaker, are these justifiable arguments to use when we are speaking about the future of our nation, when we are worried about the problems of unity or disunity, when we are dealing with a subject that has so great an emotional impact? Are these arguments not futile? Do they not have the taint of partisan politics? Do government members opposite honestly feel that a plebiscite would not solve this problem, or are they not taking the position that because the opposition has suggested a plesbiscite it must necessarily be wrong? Do they feel they should be ashamed if they allow the people of Canada to make a choice? Do they feel that people will look down on them as having retreated from a policy? Is this what the trouble is?
In a situation as serious and important as this, I think any political party on either side of the house that provides a solution as workable, as simple and as conclusive as a plebiscite will serve the nation's interests and carry out the obligation that parliament is established to fulfil. A plesbiscite would do something that has been necessary from the very beginning of the discussion of this matter. It would take the problem out of partisan politics where it never should have been put in the first place.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for taking the time of the house to express my views, because I feel very strongly about this most serious matter. I know the people in Ontario and all the other provinces are really concerned and worked up about this matter. When we go out amongst the people we represent, and I think this is true in every riding in Canada, the people say they are tired of debate; they are tired of the flag question, they want to see an end to it, they want a solution. But, Mr. Speaker, they still take sides; they still have their original convictions. A man who
Canadian Flag
is a red ensign supporter when asked if we should let it go to a vote and if he would accept the new red maple leaf flag, will invariably answer "Let us settle the issue; let us get on with the business of the nation, but don't dare let them replace the red ensign."
The same situation exists on the other side. The advocates of the maple leaf flag want the issue settled. They feel we are wasting time; but if there were a danger of the issue being settled by the adoption of a compromise flag, the union jack or a red ensign, they would be the first to object. They would say "Keep on with the battle".
This is the position in which we find ourselves. We were at an impasse before, and we are at an impasse now. It is my opinion that the men on the flag committee should have had the fortitude, the diligence or the courage to set aside partisan politics, to set aside outside influences, to start thinking about Canada as a nation and come up with a compromise flag that included all the basic principles. What a golden opportunity, Mr. Speaker, they had to go down in the history of this nation as statesmen. This was not done, and it is most unfortunate that it was not.
Here we are. We must ask for a plebiscite. I must ask for a plebiscite. The people I represent are overwhelmingly in favour of being given an opportunity to make their wishes known. There is one other factor that we have in a plebiscite. There is always the basic fear that if a government promoted flag becomes the standard of the nation and the government should change in the years ahead, then since a precedent has been set the same dreary process could be gone through again to change the Canadian flag. It is true that after the experience of this parliament no government in power would be likely to attempt such a step. However, the mechanics of our system do lend themselves to such an event taking place.
It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that this government should allow a plebiscite. Then this matter would be taken out of partisan politics, not only for today but in the future as well. Once a majority of the people say "This is our flag", there would be no attempt by any political party, short of a revolution, to make a change.
It is for this reason I find it difficult to understand why we are running into opposition when we make this request of the government to have a plebiscite. Let the people decide. Let the people vote. We on this side
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Flag
of the house are not sure whether 37 per cent of the population favour our stand or 97 per cent. It is equally true that the government are not certain whether 37 per cent of the population favour their stand or 97 per cent. If we had a plebiscite and the people decided, it would not matter one iota; politically the flag would be a dead issue. Let the people decide.
I am uneasy about the fact that the government is blocking the attempt to have a plebiscite. It causes me concern, because if we do not have a plebiscite we are only hiding our heads in the sand, since in my opinion at the next general election the people are going to decide this flag issue. If we have an election now, six months from now or three years from now, this is going to be an issue. How can we avoid it? We can say, as members of parliament, that we cannot go to the people on this issue; we cannot have a division in the country on this issue. We all know that out in the open this will not be a political issue. We all know there are major differences between the political parties in this house with which the parties will go on the hustings. We will have our political battles on the platforms, in the newspapers and over the radio.
However, we all know as well that in the bitter battles on the side roads, in the villages and little towns, those people who feel that their desire for the red ensign was not carried out will be attempting a vendetta against the present government. Conversely, it is equally true that those who are in favour of the three maple leaf flag will feel that their wishes have been trampled upon and they will be determined to make this an issue. It does not matter how we try to deal with this issue, we are going to have to vote on it. Why not have the issue out in the open? Why not have a plebiscite?
There is one basic difference if we do not have a plebiscite. If we have an election campaign in which the flag will be a fait accompli, regardless of the wishes of the people, we will create havoc with the unity of this country. I feel I speak for every member in this house when I say that national unity is our prime concern. We have had too many speakers who have tried to drive a wedge between groups, perhaps not by their speeches but by their actions. When we try, as we have done in this party, to put across our proposals we are told we are putting forward proposals for Anglo-Saxon Canada.
This is not true, Mr. Speaker, because most of us on this side of the house represent dual

ridings. When we try to put our side of the question on the record we hear challenges of filibuster and of our holding up the work of the house. We in the house realize this is an exchange between parties, but the damaging impact back in the country is that our people think this is Anglo-Saxon versus French Canadian, and the damage done is immeasurable. That is why I feel so badly when I hear hon. members opposite interrupting us. This is too serious a matter to treat with levity. It is too serious for the well being of our nation in both the near and distant future.
As I have pointed out, the members of the flag committee had an opportunity to become statesmen, and to go down in history as statesmen. I say the members of the government could go down in history as statesmen if they let the people of Canada decide this issue. If there is one thing Canadians cannot stand it is arrogance, and the one thing which will make a Canadian madder than anything else is for him to be told what he must do now and what he must do in the future.
It would be so simple to have a plebiscite so that Canadians from coast to coast could be Canadians and could feel proud of the fact that they had their little say in the choice of a Canadian flag. It would not matter one iota what was on the flag if the people of Canada, not a political party, put it there.
We speak of Canadian unity. How can we have Canadian unity when the most emotional problem we have faced in a decade is thrown into the political arena? So long as it is there, there will be two sides to the question, not only in each province but in each county, township and town. This problem has created division, and the only way out of the impasse into which we as a parliament have got ourselves, and into which the government has got itself, is to let the people of Canada make the decision. That is an honourable way out, and we as an opposition are not proposing it for political gain. We cannot take the credit for it, but I feel the government would be commended if it agreed to hold a plebiscite. Further, the people would be proud of the government if it gave them the opportunity to vote on this issue.
As I say, we cannot take the credit for suggesting this because the idea did not come from us but from our constituents, who earlier this session flooded our desks with their letters and telegrams on the matter. I

would not want my name to go down in history as one who advocated a rigid, uncompromising design for a Canadian flag, and that is why 1 am proud to have the opportunity to stand up this afternoon and give my views frankly and openly.
Despite the publicity that has been generated from coast to coast about the stand taken by our party on this issue, may I point out we are the party which said "Let there be a compromise". We are the party which said "Let there be a plebiscite". We are the party which said "Let the people of Canada decide". This is our position, and it would be interesting to know what position will be taken by hon. members opposite. Are they more concerned with partisan politics than with the wishes of the people they represent? Are they more concerned with the tally of votes than with the basic principle we are facing today?
I am sure hon. members opposite do not want to And themselves in that position, and I respectfully suggest that a plebiscite gives them an out. If they advocated a plebiscite they would have nothing to be ashamed of and could walk with pride. But how can they justify taking a position which tells the people of this nation "You cannot decide this. We as members of the Canadian government will make your decision for you, and what we decide will be your flag from now on". I do not want to be put in that position, and I fail to see how hon. members opposite could want to either. This is why I find it hard to understand why they do not at once accept the plebiscite proposition. If they did then we could get on with the business of the nation, something which I believe all hon. members want to do. It is as simple as that. Let the people decide.
Mr. Rock:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? He has suggested that if there is no plebiscite there will be strong feelings among those who support the ensign and those who support a new flag. Is he suggesting that if there is a plebiscite there will be no feelings between groups which adamantly support the red ensign and other groups which support the new flag? Is he suggesting a limit on campaigning in a plebiscite?


Harold Warren Danforth: If we put this matter into the hands of the people and held a plebiscite, then with the majority of the Canadian people having taken a decision there would be nothing to be gained for political purposes. There would no longer be partisan politics
Canadian Flag
in the flag issue, something with which the House of Commons is swamped today.


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, since the debate this afternoon must necessarily centre on the topic of a plebiscite I trust I may be allowed to develop a theme which arises when national symbols are changed without recourse to such a method of doing it.
As most hon. members of the house are aware, I am a supporter of the red ensign as the flag of Canada, and for several sessions I have had a bill on the order paper proposing its official adoption by parliament. But because I and many of my colleagues support that flag we have been accused of jingoism, phony patriotism, extremism, sometimes English colonialism and other times sentimental symbolism, and other diversionary epithets of the new nationalism.
I believe I must repudiate the arguments of those who say it is childish to cherish a symbol of man's aspirations or achievements. A symbol can sum up the best or worst of a man's mind or a man's soul. Symbols are the essence of communication between man and his God. The art and science of symbolism distinguishes man from animal.
Man's alphabets are written symbols; his languages are sound symbols; his religions are rich in symbols; his music, sculptures and paintings are symbols. It has been said of one cathedral raised by man to the greater glory of God that it is "frozen music"; it has been said of another that it is a "nightmare in stone". Symbols attend man's birth, his marriage, his religious, social and other activities as he goes to and from upon the earth; they wait upon his death. By them, he creates; by them, he destroys. Not least of all, they symbolize his political conceptions and his political perversions.
The memory of man will not forget for a very long time to come a certain man who took the symbol of the swastika-a good luck symbol older than ancient India-reversed it and made it a symbol of genocide as a political art. Another man, lesser in evil than he, took the fasces, for 2000 years a symbol of the grandeur of Roman achievement in law and political administration, and perverted it into the obscene symbol of a political mafia.
Only last week members of this house paid tribute to a man who symbolizes for millions of people of diverse tongues and races what we may call the terrible twentieth century in which we live. Our own Prime

Canadian Flag
Minister described him as "a man of parliament". Perhaps because he is a man of parliament that man did not mock symbols. When winged swastikas fired the skies over England's cities and the earth opened to swallow the women and children of England and bury them beneath the wrecked symbols of their homes, then was seen the V for victory sign; then was heard its counterpart in music.
These symbols were evident everywhere. They were important not only to those in Great Britain but to members in this House of Commons who were aware of them in their offices in this building, and who returned to this chamber from those offices to lead Canadians to make the greatest effort and sacrifice in men, money and material that this nation has ever made. Mr. Speaker, the man who led the greatest effort against the greatest odds we have ever seen spoke and achieved through symbols. Which of us will forget the defiant arrogance of his words "Some chicken, some neck", uttered in this chamber to the French prophets of doom.
Of this man of symbols Mr. Harold Wilson has said "If Winston Churchill could write his own epitaph it would simply be this: - 'He was a good House of Commons man'." And as a good House of Commons man, Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill holds dear the symbols of the House of Commons, the symbols of parliament and the symbols of the Queen in parliament. No one is more rationally aware than he that the principles of the United Kingdom constitution which are in turn the principles of the Canadian constitution are the principles of republic. But no one is more rationally aware than Winston Churchill, that man of parliament, of the role of tradition, habit and symbols in preserving ancient institutions after effective power has passed elsewhere. No one knows better than he how important this role is to political stability. It is those principles, in combination with those traditions, habits, symbols and institutions, which make parliamentary government of the United Kingdom type the kind of government which is most deliberately initiated today.
We know that many times in recent years attempts have been made to transplant the British parliamentary system. Many of these efforts have failed and the nations which have made this experiment have slipped into dictatorship because the leaders imported the machinery of the British parliamentary system but scorned the symbols, or mistook

the meaning of the symbols. These were not men of evil intent; they were either men of the intellectual elite who looked upon a symbol as an emotional crutch for a lame-brain, or they were irrational men who read into the symbols the meanings of their private hates and fears.
Let us consider another symbol, one which lies before us. In the centre of the chamber rests the mace. It is a symbol of royal authority, the symbol of the authority of this house, a symbol of your own authority, Mr. Speaker. In ancient times it was a symbol of the union of church and state.


Mr. Byrne:: I think this would be an appropriate moment to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since a reference has been made to your authority. Simply for the record I wish to draw to your attention the fact that the hon. member is out of order on two counts. First, he is reading his speech, in the second place he is in no way discussing the question of a plebiscite.


Mr. Speaker:: I must disagree with the hon. member's last contention. Symbols are important to this country, and the hon. member is relating that to the value, in his opinion, of a plebiscite. As to his reading his speech, he has rather full notes but it is not the first time members have had full notes.


James Norris Ormiston: I appreciate the observations of the hon. member for Kootenay East. I hope that at some suitable time we may hear his views on this whole subject. I was certainly trying to associate the symbolism of the past with the symbolism of the age in which we live. We must attempt to do this if we are to be in a proper position to carry out a plebiscite, because in the event of a plebiscite there will be a need for the study of symbols.
I was referring to the symbol which we see before us, and I was about to say that in ancient times archbishops carried it as they rode beside their kings into battle. They carried a mace instead of a cutting weapon so they might do their duty to their king by bludgeoning his enemies instead of offending God by shedding blood. Upon such niceties of symbolism have the multiracial British tolerated one another's eccentricities and survived. Some of those eccentricities and traditions survive in this chamber to the present day. I can recall from a study of English history that at the time Cromwell was in the British House of Commons he noticed the

mace lying on the table and cried "Take away that bauble".
That is what has happened today, Mr. Speaker. I believe that in this chamber today we again hear this cry "Take away that bauble!" in that we are taking away some of our symbols. I am afraid we hear this on the treasury benches too, benches so largely filled with ministers who were schooled and trained in the dictatorial branch of our democracy. We hear it from their men in the grey flannel suits, men bought and paid to erase the symbols of monarchy and to substitute the symbolic image of a man who never was-a man who was not in this house when his ministers two-faced a crisis-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Order.


James Norris Ormiston: -a man who was not in
the house because his ministers sent him to a prairie Coventry, not because he had broken our constitutional principles but because he might observe them. We hear: "Take away the red ensign". We hear: "Take away the Queen's picture from the citizenship courts". We hear: "Take away the word 'dominion' and the word 'national' from government doors and letterheads."


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must agree with one of the recent objections that this is not really germane to the question of a plebiscite. The hon. member is giving a personal opinion. I was trying to follow the hon. member in his symbolism as it dealt with a plebiscite and 1 thought he had a point, but when he goes on to pictures and things like that he is away off the mark.


James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Speaker, I will try to confine my remarks to the true meaning of symbolism.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: How are going to do that if you keep reading?


James Norris Ormiston: If we take away everything which reminds us that we inherited a democracy-our traditions, our habits, and most of all our symbols-certainly we have lost part of the element of democracy. The men who say this have now come to the point where they are prepared to move, and I would suggest that some members on the other side of the house are moving, not openly but stealthily, slyly and surreptitiously on the floor of this house against the prerogative of the crown.
This may seem a harsh statement to those not schooled in constitutional matters, but only the Queen of Canada can appoint a flag for
Canadian Flag
Canada. Yet never in all the statements made over the months inside and outside the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and some other ministers of the crown, or in the motions drafted by them and placed upon the official records of the house, has there been reference to that constitutional fact. Surely at some period or other, upon some occasion or other, it might be thought that the Prime Minister would be proud to tell this house, in the manner in which Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent was proud to tell the house on February 3, 1953 with respect to the royal style and title, that: "It is Her Majesty who will determine, who will announce by proclamation what the flag will be for Canada". Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent was, and is, a great constitutional lawyer. He was a good minister of justice and a good prime minister of Canada. He left those two positions, the two highest political offices in the gift of the Canadian people, the better for his holding them.
I ask now, Mr. Speaker, do those ministers of the crown who sat to the left and to the right of Prime Minister St. Laurent when he spoke those words, and who sit on the front benches today, believe that he demeaned himself when he said:
It is Her Majesty who will determine, who will announce by proclamation what her royal style and titles will be for each one of the several realms of the commonwealth.
Do these individuals who listened so intently at that time now repudiate as colonialism the words of this Liberal, this constitutional lawyer, this minister of justice and attorney general of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that in the present circumstances the hon. member is entitled to criticize the action of the government in bringing forward this matter for discussion, or the terms of the motion or anything else of that nature; but to impute motives to ministers which, to say the least, are subject to suspicion as stated by my hon. friend, is not correct. The hon. member may disagree with the actions which have been taken but I do not think it is right to impute motives to ministers who happen to hold a different opinion from that which is held by the hon. member. It seems to me that he is away off the point of a plebiscite, how it should be held, where it should be held, when it should be held and if it should be held.


James Norris Ormiston: I thank you for your direction Mr. Speaker, but I was just pointing out that there was a great deal of difference between the statements of the former prime-

Canadian Flag
minister and the terms of the resolution, which asks that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially the flag of Canada. I am sure I can join with the previous member who spoke in saying that there must be some recourse to the people of Canada, because certainly the government has not taken the option which has presented itself.
I read into the record the Queen's prerogative. This has not been considered at all, and it seems to me it is only fair that the government should use every available opportunity and every channel to make sure that the people of Canada are given a fair voice in what will be a national symbol for many years to come. It is beyond me why the government are reticent to take this step. Surely if the government is sure of its judgment it should not be afraid to call a plebiscite at a suitable time, which of course would be at the time of the next election. On that occasion the government would be able to judge by the results of the plebiscite whether or not they were justified in their actions.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would only say that the situation which we are presenting gives the government that alternative. It gives the people of Canada a choice and it will destroy forever the statements, or the thoughts which are behind the statements, that what we have today is a political flag.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment before this Chamber, which asks the government to hold a plebiscite whereby the people of Canada would have the opportunity at the next federal election to express their views on the adoption of a distinctive flag for Canada. Before I commence my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on reaching the very difficult decision you had to make-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think in the present circumstances no reference at all should be made to the Speaker. I hope there will be no bad references, but there do not have to be any good ones either.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will proceed with my remarks.
I should like to say at the outset that the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) will not have occasion to accuse me of reading from notes because I will try to keep away from notes as much as possible; I intend to speak from the heart. I intend to speak on behalf of the conscience of thousands of people in my riding-yes, millions of people
[Mr. Ormiston.)
in Canada-who want a chance to express their views by means of a plebiscite. I plead for them, Mr. Speaker. These people have a right to be heard, in my opinion, and I think it is up to the government to provide them with the opportunity to say which flag they prefer. This may be my last opportunity to speak on behalf of these people, so before this government pulls down the Canadian red ensign, which has stood for so much- honour, history, love, sentiment and tradition-and replace it with another flag, I would beg the government to let the people make their choice. Whatever steps are taken, or whatever choice is made we should remind ourselves that it will be made for our children and our children's children, and will be our flag for centuries and centuries to come.
This is an emotional matter involving a moral and personal choice, and with all the power and persuasion at my command I plead with this government, and particularly the Prime Minister, to let the conscience of the people of Canada be heard. Let us have a plebiscite at the next election. It would not be costly and could be handled very easily, allowing the people of this country an opportunity to express their views. I am sure the Canadian people feel that this debate has lasted long enough. The public polls which have been held in recent days indicate that over 60 per cent of the people want a plebiscite. Why do they want a plebiscite? I suggest it is because they desire an opportunity to express their views and because they want this flag question taken from the House of Commons.
It is within the power of the Prime Minister to remove this question from this chamber and allow the people to voice an opinion by plebiscite. He brought this flag question into the house and he is the man who can take it out. We as the opposition did not bring this subject before parliament. I am sure that every loyal Canadian, given the chance to express an opinion, would accept a choice made by a plebiscite. Why does the Prime Minister delay putting this question to the people in the form of a plebiscite? Important business which this house should now be considering, such as the labour code legislation, implementation of the Gill report recommendations, pension and railway legislation and all the other important matters could then be dealt with.
There are those who will ask why a plebiscite is necessary. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) just asked whether we

did not think that by holding a plebiscite we would arouse hard feelings. May I suggest to him that perhaps hard feelings might be aroused; but at least the people would have a chance to express their feelings, and that is the opportunity we wish to give them. In answer to those who ask why a plebiscite is necessary, I should like to remind them that we want to see the other side of the coin during this debate. Why have we not heard from those on the government side of the house, their reasons why a plebiscite should not be held? What is wrong with putting this question to a plebiscite?
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) did on one occasion make reference to a plebiscite and suggested that if Sir John A. Macdonald had held a plebiscite we may never have had confederation. My answer to that suggestion is that Sir John A. Macdonald was a man of sound judgment and knew that confederation was a matter concerning legislation and constitution, and therefore that a plebiscite was not necessary. However, on an emotional issue, such as the choice of a flag, different considerations must be studied.
I challenge my friends on the government side of this house to stand in their places and tell us their reasons for thinking a plebiscite is not the proper way of deciding this issue. When I spoke on August 31 I challenged my hon. friends to defend the position they have adopted. I refer to them sincerely as my friends, members such as the hon. members for Durham (Mr. Honey), Brantford (Mr. Brown), Renfrew South (Mr. Greene), Carle-ton (Mr. Francis), Wentworth (Mr. Morison), Halton (Mr. Harley), Hastings South (Mr. Temple), Peel (Mr. Beer), and Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh). Have any of those hon. members risen in their places and defended their position on the flag debate or told us why a plebiscite should not be held? The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) was so anxious to give the report of the flag committee he gave it to the press before the committee presented it to the house. Why has he not been on his feet in this chamber to defend the position his party has taken on the flag issue, and told us why there should not be a plebiscite?


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have made my position very clear on the question of a plebiscite, and if the hon. member would take the time to turn up my speech in Hansard, and the speeches made by many other members on this side of the house,
Canadian Flag
during the 22 days of debate covering this whole subject, he would find ample information as to why we take this position. I think he should read my address in this chamber before making such remarks.


Alfred Dryden Hales: He still has an opportunity to express his views as to why we should or should not hold a plebiscite, and I invite the hon. member to take the opportunity of doing so.
Have we heard from the members of the treasury benches on this subject? Out of 26 we have heard from only four. Is that an honest and sincere effort on their part? I think Her Majesty's loyal opposition is entitled to the views of members on the opposite side on this subject, and they should partake freely in this debate. Let them stand in their places and present their views.
A plebiscite is necessary in my opinion for the following reasons. It is necessary because this issue affects the conscience of every Canadian. It is necessary because the symbols making up a Canadian flag are based on tradition and history and are held near and dear to the hearts of every Canadian. I do not think such a thing as a flag can be the subject of legislation. People must be given a choice, and a chance to express their view on something so important to them as a flag. The people want a voice in this matter, and who is to know how they feel unless they are given an opportunity to voice their opinions.
No one can tell exactly what are the views of the public on such an important matter as a Canadian flag. We have had ample evidence of that fact here in this chamber. The right hon. Prime Minister and his government introduced a flag in this house that he felt was the flag which would be accepted by the whole of Canada. In spite of the fanfare, public relations, bumper stickers and miniature flags, that flag was turned down by a committee of this house by a vote of 14 to nothing. That would indicate a great difference of opinion within this house; yet we are now being asked to accept another distinctive flag for Canada. I do not think such a choice can be made properly here in this chamber.
One cannot assess public opinion accurately without holding a plebiscite. Perhaps I can illustrate that point in this way. A plebiscite was held in 1942 on the subject of conscription. One might have expected that in a riding such as Waterloo North, the residents of which are predominantly of German extraction, the vote would be two to one against conscription. When the vote was counted the

Canadian Flag
outcome was exactly the opposite. The people had voted two to one in favour of conscription. The same holds true of the province of Quebec. When the vote was taken on the question of conscription it was expected that perhaps 5,000 or 10,000 people would vote for conscription, but when the ballots were counted it was found that 376,188 in Quebec had voted for conscription. So one never knows what the public are thinking on these matters that are so close and dear to them. Just as the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) found out that the flag he introduced into the house was not acceptable, so we might be quite surprised to find out in a plebiscite how people are thinking on this very important matter.
Let us briefly look into the history of plebiscites. I am a great believer in turning back the pages of history to find out what has been done, and what we should do. As far back as 1517 Erasmus, the great philosopher, stated in very precise language that all power and authority over people rests on their consent and that title by conquest is a fallacy. In 1527 Francis I of France, perceiving the political value of the principle, used it as a weapon of diplomacy. Henry II used self-determination; it is very interesting to note it was not referred to as a plebiscite in those days, but rather self-determination, for assuming control of Toal, Metz and Verdun.
Now we come to the period when the method of popular consultation or self-determination enjoyed its greatest use. From 1855 to 1866 scarcely a year passed without some endorsement of the plebiscite method. Napoleon's treaty with Cavour contained a clause providing for consultation of the inhabitants. The treaty of Prague on August 23, 1866, terminated the war between Prussia and Austria over the spoils they had seized from Denmark in 1864. Article V stated that Prussia could only incorporate the duchies if a free vote or plebiscite was taken.
In the case of the separation of Norway from Sweden in 1905 several joint committees were set up and meeting after meeting was held to decide what the solution should be. A plebiscite was proposed. The result settled the issue and today we have the two separate countries of Norway and Sweden. The island of Bartholomew in the West Indies was given to France by the Swedish cabinet in 1877 but not until a plebiscite or self-determination vote had been held.
Australia has used the plebiscite on several occasions and most recently to determine whether or not the communist party should

be allowed to operate in Australia. New Zealand used the plebiscite on the liquor question. Ghana used a plebiscite for deciding whether or not it would be a republic and so did South Africa in 1960. We are all aware that in the United States all state constitutions except one contain provision for taking a poll of the people, or holding a plebiscite. So we find plebiscites have been used down through the years. They are very necessary and have played a part in solving many difficult problems.
We only have to think of how often plebiscites are used at the municipal level. Right in my own city this month two plebiscites are being held, one on the question of Sunday sports and movies and the other on fluoridation. Why are they being held? Because these are matters that are personal to the people and close to their consciences. Do the people of my city criticize the aldermen for using a plebiscite? Do they accuse them of not being able to make up their minds as members of the council? No. No such suggestion has ever been made. The people are anxious to have the opportunity to express their views according to their own consciences on matters so personal to them.
Therefore I maintain that in deciding the flag issue, an issue so close to the consciences of the people of Canada, we should give the people the opportunity to decide through a plebiscite. As I said, plebiscites are not new. They have been used through the ages. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) does not see the advantage of a plebiscite. One would think he would jump at the opportunity. Even Francis I of France, as I stated, recognized the political value of the plebiscite as far back as 1527 and used it as a weapon of diplomacy. Great diplomat that the Prime Minister is, one would think that he too would use the plebiscite, this weapon of diplomacy, as one way to find the answer to this difficult problem.
Indeed, Liberal governments have used plebiscites on two occasions. One was held in 1898 to settle the issue of prohibition and one was held in 1942 on the question of conscription. So this would not be the first time that a Liberal government has used the plebiscite.
I believe I have given enough examples, Mr. Speaker, of the many instances in which a plebiscite has been used to settle major issues to prove the value of a plebiscite from the point of view of the results that can be obtained. Finally, I say, not only what I said at the beginning of my speech, but also

when speaking in the flag debate on August 31st last: A plebiscite should be held. It is the only answer I can see for such an important issue involving a moral and personal choice, an issue which 265 people out of 20 million cannot decide. This has been proven over and over again.
It is quite evident, Mr. Speaker, that public opinion is snowballing in favour of a plebiscite. People realize it is the only answer and the only way to settle this great problem. People are even expressing their great gratitude now to Her Majesty's loyal opposition for saving Canada from adopting the three maple leaf flag which this Liberal government intended should be thrust upon us. That same flag was turned down by the Liberal members of the committee. Yet that was the flag that the government would have had Canada adopt. To my mind this illustrates what a difficult problem is involved in settling this issue and how easily it might be settled by means of a plebiscite. We want an opportunity for self-determination. In my opinion it is the only way out. I say again that I will vote for a plebiscite. I will vote for self-determination. I should like to close by quoting a paraphrase of an ancient Nordic policy to this effect:
On minor affairs the few decide; on great affairs the many.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity, along with many other members, to put on the record my beliefs and the beliefs of my constituents on this issue. There are many members on all sides of the chamber who will not be speaking on either the amendment or the motion itself. Whether this course has been chosen either because they feel that the issue can best be handled by not speaking at all, or they feel that others have already adequately expressed their own feelings, I commend those members for their selfrestraint. If, however, there are members in this chamber whose silence has been prompted solely by partisan considerations or, even worse, implicit or explicit threats, I pass on to those members of parliament my sympathy for their situation and my scorn for their cowardice. For my own part, I intend to speak now but not again on this subject. I apologize to no one for this decision which I arrived at fully and freely after a soul-searching consideration of my duties to the people of the Northwest Territories whom I represent, in so far as I am able to understand those duties.
Canadian Flag
The house is about to vote on an amendment to instruct the special flag committee to change the recommendation which that committee arrived at by a majority vote of its members. This committee was, as we know, an all party committee, and numerically speaking its decision was absolutely clear. Why then, it is asked, should the matter be sent back? The answer to this question, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely clear also. At no time has a case been made in this house as to why we should have a new flag at all. In the absence of such instructions from the Canadian people, none of us as individuals and no political party in this house, has either a mandate or even the right to tamper with the symbols and the feelings of the Canadian people.
Who was it, I want to know, who took it upon himself to decide that a change was not only necessary but that it must be made now? What evidence did the government have that had been accumulated to cause it to forsake other social and economic national goals to pursue this matter now? This afternoon, as I walked over to this chamber and looked up at the peace tower with the Canadian red ensign flying from it, as I do quite often, I had to ask myself again, what is all this about? I for one am not dedicated to the retention of this particular flag. However, I do not find it offensive, nor am I in the throes of some demoniac obsession to tear it down from the flagstaffs all over this nation. Before I can support a vote that would change this flag, someone is going to have to convince me that not only is such a change warranted now but that that change would somehow or other make better Canadians out of all of us.
I have serious doubts also, Mr. Speaker, if most Canadians, given a choice through a plebiscite, would insist on the urgency of the change at this time or perhaps even a change at all. So far, the only argument I have heard is the claim by some, but not all, of the government supporters that this flag is a commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to the Canadian people. Well, I for one have to have a more serious reason than that for the removal of a traditional flag and its replacement by another. Surely the need for a flag must be based on reasons that we can see here and now, and that historians will be able to see in the future, and that are more serious than the suggestion that we must now change the flag solely as an attempt to placate an insecure and accident prone Prime Minister who may otherwise not achieve a place in Canadian history.

Canadian Flag
Like most other Canadians this week, however, I felt sorry for the Prime Minister in this matter that he is trying to handle. However, I do not intend to help tear up the red ensign to bind the wounds that the Prime Minister and his fellow cabinet ministers have inflicted on themselves and the country. Aside from the fact that no case has been made for this change of flag, there are other reasons, compelling reasons, why no further action should be taken unless at the specific request of the Canadian people through a plebiscite. There is ample evidence from the speeches made in this House of Commons, that some members are either totally misjudging the moods and desires of their constituents or are purposely misstating the situation. I am not here talking about members like the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) who said in this house during the flag debate on July 2, 1964, as reported at page 4949 of Hansard, that members should pay no attention to their constituents' wishes in this matter, but should rather follow their own intellectual inclinations. I have difficulty believing that in constituencies of similar make-up, located side by side in this country, two extreme and diametrically opposed positions on the flag actually exist. However, if one were to believe the Liberal members of parliament, that is the situation.
I contrast this situation, Mr. Speaker, with the way in which the Conservative party know and respect the attitude of our fellow colleagues in this party from the province of Quebec on this issue. These members have reached a conclusion on this matter and, generally speaking, all of the members from the province of Quebec from all parties in this house reflect a unity of objective and purpose on this matter. I know that; I understand it. I respect it, and it makes sense to me that that situation exists. But how in the light of this can you explain the stand being taken by some government members from other parts of the country, other than as blind obedience to the whim of a Prime Minister who has lost his grasp on reality?
I suggest that a national plebiscite would show whether or not a majority of Canadians want the present flag removed and replaced. I would even go a step further. I sincerely believe the only reason the Prime Minister is refusing to accept a plebiscite is not so much because he and his cabinet members have no regard for the opinion of Canadian people but because he is terrified of the outcome of such a straw vote taken from one end of the nation to the other. He is desper-
[Mr. Rheaume.l
ately afraid that a majority of Canadians would see no urgency in this matter, that same majority of Canadians who denied his party and himself political support in the last general election.
The Prime Minister has said in the house that he is a great believer in the majority decision of a special flag committee, a committee which he can load with Liberals and those of similar easy principle. But he is not willing to listen to a majority of Canadians and I want to know why not. I want to know what commitments were made by the Prime Minister, and to whom, that he would obliterate the union jack before the end of 1964, for there is no other explanation to clear up this weird and pathetic obsession with the flag.
There is another reason why I believe we should hold a plebiscite. It is because no Canadian can seriously accept, as the serious choice of parliament, the design recommended by the flag committee. For that reason the amendment should be supported. You will remember some months ago the ecstasy with which the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Mathe-son) and the Prime Minister regarded the three maple leaves on the white background with the two blue bars. This was Canada. This was the flag of the Prime Minister's dreams. It was perfect; but now the same Prime Minister and the same hon. member for Leeds say, "If you think that was good contemplate, if you will, a white background with two red bars and one red leaf, because this represents Canada."
In the Montreal Star of November 20 I notice a report relating to symbols, in which the government announced the appointment of a man to handle the merchandising of the Arctic owl, Ookpik. I want to read the pertinent sentence where it says this man will have particular responsibility for Ookpik, the Arctic owl used internationally as a Canadian emblem. Yet we are told the reason we must proceed with the flag committee report is that one red leaf is Canada from coast to coast to coast, that this is Canada around the world. But now we find the government appointing someone to promote Ookpik as another international Canadian emblem. One is led to wonder what might have happened to the Canadian flag had the Eskimos of the north been transferred to the province of Quebec. Perhaps it would have been Ookpik on a red background with two white bars.
I mention these things to highlight the point I am trying to make, that in view of what has

happened no Canadian can take seriously the sort of nonsense the government is advancing as a Canadian flag for all time.
I am a young man, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact only 32 years of age this very day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I am not completely devoid of a sense of historical or traditional values, nor am I unmindful of the sacrifice of two world wars that many people, particularly veterans, whether rightly or wrongly have come to associate with the Canadian red ensign. Of course I am equally sure that it is only because there are many people in the country who escaped the sacrifice of those times, and who do not associate that sacrifice with the flag under which Canadians fought, that the Liberal party has dared to make the Canadian Legion and veterans official organizations objects of ridicule.
In 1945 when some, but not all, of the boys were coming home the Prime Minister we have now would not have dared this. His courage would not have been up to this, just as it has deserted him so often in the presence of other serious domestic issues. It is very easy now, in 1964, for the Liberal government with its professional image builders to go about the country debasing the traditions of the past, following an old Liberal tactic of building themselves up by tearing others down.
I urge the house to vote for a plebiscite as the way of giving the people of Canada a chance to show whether or not they want the traditional symbols in the red ensign replaced. I want a plebiscite to give the Canadian people an opportunity to say whether from an aesthetic or an historical point of view they are happy with a flag which has nothing on it to link it either with the future or with the past. This country was French for many years and my own ancestors lived here during the time it was under French rule. They played a small part in helping to build it. It is equally true that after the battle of the plains of Abraham Canadian history took a new turn under the English. I do not think the adoption of a new flag devoid of all reference to those two founding races would in any way change history or in any way make up for those previous conflicts.
At the present time our country is very conscious, in a bitter and hurt way, that it was founded originally by the French and the English. Perhaps hon. members will say
Canadian Flag
it is not very important for us in 1964 to put anything on our flag which will serve to remind people of the contribution of the English and the French. But the flag we are choosing, or the flag which will be chosen, should be flying 200 years from now and it should be extremely important to every member of this house that 200 years from now, regardless of where Canada has gone in those centuries our people are reminded of the fact that for mny years this country was French and that for many years it was English and that those in the Canadian House of Commons in 1964 were not ashamed to put symbols on the flag to remind people of these facts.
I have said that no one has yet convinced me there is a compelling and urgent reason to change the flag we have. Although I have no particular personal commitment to the Canadian red ensign, before I will participate in the removal of this flag, someone on the government side has to convince me that the need to change it is founded on something more important than the fact that on April 8, 1963, the government of this country changed.
I am happy to see the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) back in his place.


An hon. Member:: We have missed him.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: It would not be accurate to say we have missed him. But it is still nice to have him back because on this very subject, the necessity for a change, the hon. gentleman said one evening that we had to have a distinctive flag and that his definition of "distinctive" was "anything without the union jack on it".


Mr. Dupuis:: Or the fleur-de-lis. Put the facts straight.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I am happy to have the minister back because I should like to get the latest quotation on those three leaf bumper stickers. Last time I heard, they were about $25 a thousand-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has for the last several minutes been straying from the question before the house, that is, the question of the plebiscite.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: You must admit, Mr. Speaker, I am responding to interruptions from the Minister without Portfolio who insists on trying to put something on the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I realize the minister interjected a remark, but he interjected that

Private Bills
remark in reply to a part of the hon. member's speech which was out of order.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: 
Yvon Dupuis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A moment ago the hon. member quoted me as saying that, to me, a distinctive flag is any emblem which does not bear a union jack. I want him to know that this is not true.
When referring to my remark, he forgot to add what I said at the end: any emblem bearing neither the union jack nor the fleur-de-lis.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no question of privilege. The hon. minister merely wishes to correct what he considers to be a mistake in the hon. member's reference.

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



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-27 respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Brown-Mr. La-moureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Number of directors.
Lucien Lamoureux: When the committee rose on October 22 last, clause 1 of the bill with an amendment proposed thereto by the hon. member for Timiskaming and an amendment to the amendment by the hon. member for Lapointe was being considered. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Cowan:: You may remember, Mr. Chairman, that when this bill was up for consideration six weeks ago today I was making some remarks with regard to the subamendment. I am quite prepared to support the subamendment because I believe the general telephone users of Canada are entitled to more representation on this board than is now accorded to them.

When I spoke six weeks ago I referred to the letter which the presidents of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways had written in 1961 to the hon. member for Three Rivers. In this letter they pointed out they had lost a 30 year contract with the C.B.C. which went to the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, which company, the Bell, had undercut them on the tender by 25 per cent. When I read the letter to the house on December 21, 1963, on our discussion of the C.B.C. estimates, I read these two paragraphs from the joint letter which was signed by Mr. Donald Gordon and Mr. Emerson:
Assuming that it is in the national interest to maintain competition in the communications industry, we think you will agree that such competition cannot be preserved if one group is permitted to quote depressed rates in the competitive situation and to obtain recompense through higher rates for other services.
Public long distance telephone rates in Canada are 50 per cent or more above comparable rates in the United States which are regulated by the federal communications commission.
They went on to point out that the Bell Telephone Company, having undercut competitors by 25 per cent in a competitive field, would make good the losses on that contract by raising rates elsewhere in other fields of endeavour.
And better prophets, Mr. Chairman, never spoke, because we now have a report that the Bell Telephone Company is seeking an increase in rates in ten exchanges in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec at this very moment. There is a very interesting angle to this application for increases. I was interrupted by the clock six weeks ago today as I was about to read a Canadian Press dispatch which I saw in the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph for May 2, 1964. I think the committee will be interested in a little history on this matter. This small dispatch says:
Bell wants to increase rates; Montreal. (CP)
The Bell Telephone Company said Friday, May 1, it has asked the board of transport commissioners for permission to boost rates in ten telephone exchanges in Quebec and Ontario.
A company spokesman said the exchanges in question have all outgrown their present rate group, and should be reclassified.
The increases would range from ten cents a month for a two-party line in St. Eemi, Quebec, to $1.35 on a one-party business line in Kitchener, Ontario. The two Quebec exchanges involved are Grand Remous and St. Remi.
The company announcement said telephone rates for an exchange are governed by the number of phones in its local dialing area.
Immediately after this debate concluded six weeks ago I wrote a letter to the board

of transport commissioners of this government asking them for a formal announcement regarding the rate increase that the Bell Telephone was seeking, as it was stated that a hearing was about to be held. You will be very interested, Mr. Chairman, in the reply which I received from the board under date October 28, a letter signed by Mr. C. W. Rump, secretary. The upshot of this letter, which runs to three pages with appendices attached, is very interesting. Mr. Rump tells me that the Bell Telephone Company has not asked for an increase in rates. He simply says it automatically gets an increase in rates. So you can see, Mr. Chairman, that the board of transport commissioners is taking very good care of one of the organizations placed under their control. The three page letter advises us that as the number of telephones in an exchange area increases or decreases, the board of transport commissioners requires that the rates go up as the number increases in view of the increased service which becomes available, and that the rates go down in an area where the number of telephones decreases. One of the interesting statements in this letter is as follows:
The grouping of local exchange service for ratemaking purposes is designed to recognize the varying value of service as between exchanges of different size and the factor of increased expenses associated with increases in the size of exchange areas. Growth of telephone service within a particular exchange area not only increases the range of calling available to customers but also increases the cost of furnishing service as a result of the necessity of interconnecting all customers within the exchange area.
You will be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, that in this letter the board has sent me, every single one of the ten applications pointed out there were now more telephones in the area concerned than there were before, and all have been authorized to move up to a higher rate grouping. Arthur, Ontario, for instance, moves up from group 2 to group 3. Cardinal, Ontario, moves up from group 2 to group 3 and Grand Remous, Quebec, from group 4 to group 5. Kitchener-Waterloo goes up from group 7 to group 8 and Victoria, Ontario, goes up from group 6 to group 7. St. Remi, Quebec, went up from group 3 to group 4. It is very interesting to note that the Bell does not even ask for a rate increase for its phone service. They have the board of transport commissioners hogtied to the point that the commissioners have established a table which gives the Bell Telephone Company the right to increase its rates every six months if a survey of the number of phones
Private Bills
in operation in a given area proves that the number has gone up.
You may remember, Mr. Chairman, that several members of the railway committee last July, when the Bell Telephone Company officials were before it, asked whether it was not correct that as the number of telephones went up the rate to the individual subscriber might go down, on the mistaken belief that the larger the sales the lower the unit price. We were given the very smiling answer that as the number of telephones went up, of course the rate went up because you were able to talk to more people.
When we pressed the officials of the Bell Telephone Company on that point, we were advised that the cost of servicing an increased number of telephones was astronomical. I was advised that it took one telephone line to connect one phone to another. If there are three phones it took three telephone lines, and as the number of telephones increased the cost of putting up the lines greatly increased. As reported at page 429 of the committee report for Tuesday, July 7 last, Mr. Scrivener said:
The economics of communications are such that every user must be interconnected with every other user. If you have two telephones, it takes one line to connect them.
I thanked him for the information and then he went on:
If you have three telephones, then it takes three lines to interconnect them. The more telephonei you have, the more complex are the interconnections in order to permit each telephone user to speak to the other. This involves us in the complexity of a metropolitan area like Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto as opposed to a small rural community where there are a few telephones and where a simple switchboard will interconnect them. Therefore, with telephone service, the cost of providing it tends to be upward as you increase the complexity of the interconnection.
We should like to see a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada for a hearing with regard to the interconnections between the Northern Electric Company and the Bell Telephone Company, as there are many questions about the Bell Telephone Company to which the board of transport commissioners is either unwilling or unable to secure the answers. I sincerely believe that if we had as members of the increased board of directors people suggested by the hon. member for Lapointe and the hon. member for Ro-berval we would get some of these answers in a hurry.
In connection with the July 31, 1964 mailing of dividend cheques to the shareholders of the Bell Telephone Company they had a very nice piece of puffery regarding how

Private Bills
well the Bell Telephone Company were doing, and this interesting statement was made. Previously they had told me that as the number of phones goes up so does the rate, because it takes more wires to connect each individual subscriber. But here we have enclosed with the dividend cheques for the period ending July 31, 1964 a pamphlet which states, among other things:
Improved training and better operating procedures have had something to do with these reductions, but they are mainly the result of the increasing use of automatic switching equipment-
It is funny how this economic method does not apply to local service.
-represented by direct distance dialing service, and the development of more economic long distance transmission facilities, such as microwave radio relay-
Intercity calls that at one time required the attention of at least four operators, and ten minutes to establish a connection, can now be dialed by the subscriber himself, in mere seconds, without an operator's help.
I am happy to tell the committee that 1 spent eight days hunting in Labrador at the beginning of October. I was 36 miles east of Wabush City near Ross Bay junction, and in flying around the area not only hunting but also inspecting the Grand falls of Labrador the pilot showed me the Emeril station of the Bell Telephone Company and the Sauna lake station of the Bell Telephone Company, and he advised me that I could telephone all over Labrador and that these stations took phone calls through to Scotland. I was quite interested in the fact that there are no lines between the stations, that I could see. In fact, when I got down on the ground I wanted to call for an extra aircraft to fly to Grand falls. We went over to the telephone on the railway line at Ross Bay junction and we called Wabush lake and Labrador City. As I said, they have no telephone wires, but operate this service through a microwave system. We made our call successfully.
This little pamphlet then goes on to state:
Microwave systems can transmit large quantities of information over great distances and difficult terrain more economically than is possible with wire and cable systems.
Mr. Scrivener told me that with a normal system a wire was required for every telephone. The pamphlet continues as follows:
Savings through the use of microwave do not generally apply on short range intercity calls, but are substantial on long-mileage transmissions.
Technological advances are benefiting all long distance telephone users-

This pamphlet then states:
Improved long distance service and rate reductions have been accompanied by rapidly growing use of the company's long distance facilities.
Then they give us the very interesting information that within the last 25 years, between 1939 to 1964, long distance rates for a three minute, daytime, station-to-station call have come down drastically. The examples they give are terrific. This is one example. In 1939 a three minute, daytime, station-to-station call between Ottawa and Quebec cost $1.40, and in 1964 the same call cost $1.10. That is a reduction of 30 cents, or a reduction of 21.4 per cent.
Here is another example. In 1939 a three minute, daytime, station-to-station call from North Bay to Montreal cost $1.70, and in 1964 the same call would cost $1.20, or a reduction of 29.4 per cent. Those calls are between points serviced by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
They give two more examples of terrific savings. A three minute, daytime, station-to-station call between Montreal and Vancouver cost in 1939, $7, whereas in 1964 the same call would cost $3. That represents a reduction of 57.1 per cent. That phone call would have to travel over publicly owned telephone services in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. There has been a reduction in the same type of call between Toronto and Calgary. In 1939 the call would cost $5.50 and in 1964 would cost $2.70, or a reduction of 50.9 per cent. Those calls would have to go over publicly owned telephone services in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
It is very interesting that in respect of the long distance call examples they give where the service is entirely within the confines of the Bell Telephone system the reductions are 21.4 per cent and 29.4 per cent whereas, when they have to use publicly-owned services, such as for a call between Montreal and Vancouver, or Toronto and Calgary, the reductions are 57.1 per cent and 50.9 per cent.
When we were examining the Bell Telephone people during the railway committee meetings we asked them why they wanted to increase the number of directors from 15 to 20, and received the rather interesting reply that sometimes their vice presidents are sick. I imagine their vice presidents must suffer from gout more than any other disease. They said they wanted to be able to maintain a quorum and could do so by increasing the number of directors to 20. I do not believe that is the right answer, because if you make an examination of the financial set-up of the Bell

Telephone Company you will find that more than one third of the stock, or 34.6 per cent is held by large financial institutions. Institutional investors, insurance companies and pension and mutual funds own one quarter of the company. The 93 largest investors, none of which is an individual, own six million shares of Bell Telephone Company, or 21.5 per cent. You can well imagine the scrapping that is going on among those 93 larger investors about who is going to be represented on the board of directors.
The Bell Telephone Company has issued some publicity in connection with a hearing that the board of transport commissioners has called. Personally I would like to label that hearing in advance as a joke. The Bell Telephone Company officials have pointed out that the company requires 7 per cent return on its money and they are going to have to raise another $1,250 million in the immediate future for expansion purposes. If they require that much money for expansion purposes in the immediate future one can rest assured that these large insurance companies, investment institutions and banks are going to be asked to buy Bell Telephone Company stock, and one can well imagine that those companies will want to be represented by a director on the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company in order to have a finger in controlling their heavy investments in this monopoly.
I could not agree more than I do with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, who suggested a while ago that this monopoly should be nationalized. I could not agree more than I do with the hon. member for Lapointe and the hon. member for Roberval in their wish to have representatives of the common people on the board of directors of this monopoly. I back up the hon. member for Greenwood and the junior member for Halifax in their demands that there be a supreme court ruling requested by the cabinet as to the ownership of the Northern Electric Company by Bell Telephone. If the company's interest in the Northern Electric Company were sold it would have money on hand that is needed for the expansion required, to which they refer in the publicity which is now being released prior to the hearing called for by the board of transport commissioners.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on reading extracts about the history of the Bell Telephone Company. I have exposed the fact that they receive a special rate from the Canada Post Office Department for sending out their bills
Private Bills
each month. This special rate does not apply to other organizations. The Bell company prints its own bills and calls them service charges, because the service charge is the same month after month, such as $5.75, and they get a preferred rate from the Canada Post Office Department. This preferred rate is made available to a few other giant companies which are able to print their statements with regard to indebtedness, but the small grocer or coal man whose bills vary from month to month has to send them out sealed as first class mail.
In the province of Ontario we have a special tax exemption applied to the Bell Telephone Company in the city of Toronto. The Bell Telephone Company receives a tax exemption on a large proportion of their real property. I have a letter in my hand from Allan A. Lamport, an ex-mayor of Toronto, dated October 26, 1964 which states:
I am enclosing clipping as per my promise Friday night when I saw you.
The clipping is from the Toronto Telegram of October 1 and states:
Board of control yesterday backed Con. Lamport's demand that the Bell Telephone Co. be required to pay full city realty taxes.
The Bell, by special provincial legislation, receives an annual exemption amounting to $455,000. The firm still pays $3,000,000.
Mr. Lamport's letter reads as follows:
This is also to advise you that the legislation is provincial which relieves the Bell Telephone Company, as shown in the clipping. We do not relieve the hydro or the gas company of part of their assessment. The Bell Telephone Company do a good job and a creditable one, but it is difficult to understand why they can get exclusive and specific special treatment. You could compare them with the wiring system of the hydro or the piping system of the gas company. Neither of these is relieved and one is publicly-owned. The other, namely the gas company, is privately-owned by the stockholders in the same way as the Bell Telephone Company. I trust this covers the query about which you had asked me.
1 draw this to your attention to show you the way in which the Bell Telephone Company argues for special consideration. Yet, as the member for Halifax has stated, this company has grown beyond the bounds of a monopoly and has become an empire, and requires more serious control than is now being exercised by the board of transport commissioners.
I support the subamendment wholeheartedly, because five more directors of the type outlined by the two hon. members would provide a searching examination of the Bell Telephone Company, which is long overdue.

Private Bills


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing once again today with the notorious Bill S-27 providing for an increase from 15 to 20 in the number of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
An amendment was moved providing that five directors should represent various groups, namely the federal government, the province, the municipalities and the last two, various organizations that have a certain importance and can exercise an influence on the general public so that the company would not set up all alone the rates to be charged to the customers.
It is generally realized that the rates charged by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada are much too high, especially in the Quebec region because in the case of municipalities located ten or 15 miles away, the company has doubled its long distance rates.
In my opinion, the more customers one has, the lower rates should be. However, if you examine the company's operations, you will see that the contrary happens. Its rates increase with the number of telephones and extensions.
The speech made on October 22 by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) contains a very important point that I should like to draw to your attention.
I shall speak right away of the ownership of Northern Electric Company by the Bell Company of Canada. It must be remembered that we are not speaking merely of a telephone company but of an empire; we are speaking of an organization whose gross income amounts to $471 million a year. This company has gained so much importance that it is more powerful than many governments in the world today. Its services should at all times be carefully controlled.
As for the subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, namely the Northern Electric Company, other members have pointed out that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada owns all the shares of the Northern Electric Company as the result of an interpretation of the clause empowering the company to be a shareholder or to conclude agreements with other companies doing business in the telephone field.
The fact that the Northern Electric Company has a short telephone line in the city of Montreal was used by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada as a pretext to take over that giant Northern Electric Company which provides the Bell Telephone Company with

all the wires, cables and other fittings it requires.
I am not necessarily scandalized by the fact that the Bell Telephone Company produces the cables and wires it needs. But it must not be forgotten that the Northern Electric Company is not satisfied with the large market guaranteed by the Bell Telephone monopoly, but the customers of the latter have to buy from the Northern Electric Company everything they need in that field. The Bell Telephone Company of Canada then turns to its subsidiary, the Northern Electric Company, to meet the demands of that vast market.
Northern Electric, on the other hand, competes with small Canadian companies on the everyday market by manufacturing cable, wire and other similar equipment. In my opinion, it is almost impossible for these small Canadian companies to compete with Northern Electric under the circumstances we have just described.
This famous Bill S-27, in my opinion should not have been taken up today; if the Conservatives had continued their filibuster with regard to the flag issue, an hour would have been saved and thus a vote could have been taken one hour earlier. But as we are now studying Bill S-27, we must talk on and on to say that we do not object so much to its object, namely to increase the number of directors on the board from 15 to 20, for this may not have much effect on their actions. But, once again, if we could have known exactly what the reason was for requesting an increase in the number of directors from 15 to 20. Is it to pay a little less income tax? Is it only that? I think that instead they should have reduced the rates to their subscribers, which in turn would have much reduced their income by that much and, consequently, their income tax would have been reduced accordingly.
One must not forget that we refer to a gross income of $471 million a year. I believe this is a huge amount of money. Therefore, instead of arranging for the shareholders only to benefit from this large amount, the rates should have been lowered in order to give satisfaction to subscribers who are using the telephone a great deal, particularly the industries and trades of all kinds where the telephone is absolutely essential, as otherwise business would suffer. Therefore, this service is absolutely necessary.
In my opinion, the government should have an observer in that industry which has become very important, and it should appoint a rep-

resentative. Also, if the province had a representative to see what is happening within that firm and to defend the interests of the public, we might see that some changes are occurring in many areas, and it may become easier and less expensive to obtain a telephone.
As I already stated, in view of modern inventions, space, distance, roads are shortened, if I may say so, because telephone communications may be established for instance, between Quebec city and Ottawa, within a few moments. The telephone is, therefore, a public necessity for a multitude of persons.
In my opinion, we should avail ourselves of the opportunity afforded by the consideration of Bill No. S-27 to discuss the opportunity of delaying for six months the passage of this bill, in order to allow the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to reconsider its point of view and admit on its board five directors representing, in short, the general population in each of the provinces where the company operates.
I believe that the federal government should, in such quarters, have a spokesman possessing in this field the knowledge required to assert the rights of the subscribers, since it is very hard for a subscriber to assert his rights.
Today in the province of Quebec when a claim is made to the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, it is not even possible to enter an office to state one's point of view. You go in a room, and you find there a series of telephones you have to use to state your grievances, without being able to see the claims attendant at the other end of the line. You just have to speak in a small black hole, in the telephone mouthpiece, while the other voice comes to you from the other end of the line.
You no longer have democracy, it seems to me, when things reach that stage because a company, as such, ought to have representatives. When we want to make a complaint, we should be given the opportunity to do so personally to somebody in an office instead of being compelled to use the telephone to speak to some unknown and invisible person. I think they have become a little too independent. That company has become so big that its unsatisfactory way of doing things is achieving damaging results.
There is also the matter of the "princess" telephone, which was supposed to be some kind of a marvel. The user is charged $12 or $13 for it, in addition to $1.25 a month for service. But if he has the service discontinued for six or seven months and then wants it
Private Bills
again, he literally loses the sum of $15 and has to pay for the telephone once again.
I think it is time to tell this company to take the time to reconsider the facts. If company directors wish to increase their numbers they should agree in the future to the appointment of men who would represent plain ordinary people, the mass, who, when they have grudges against the company, could then get in touch with an individual representing either the provincial or municipal authorities. This representative could then speak his mind, insist on and protect the rights of the subscribers, because nowadays one is not free to subscribe to the telephone service and cancel it the day after. It has become a must in this century. We have to subscribe to telephone service even if we do not like it and are not too pleased with the service.
Nowadays the telephone is often used to play hoaxes. Those who complain are told that it is impossible to track down the culprit, that the system is automatic. Rather than have his telephone cut off, the subscriber must put up with those phone calls night and day. Moreover, the subscriber must continue to pay all the time and his complaints are to no avail.
I think that that passage of Bill No. S-27 should be delayed six months, because there are several more important pieces of legislation to study. We do not care whether the number of directors is increased to 20, but we would like to obtain justice for the subscribers, to have the service improved and representatives appointed to hear the complaints and deal with the matter when necessary. There is something else, Mr. Chairman, when we have to use telephones during an election we are charged an extra $50 at the outset. This can become unreasonable when 10, 15 or 20 telephones are installed in various committees. The telephone is very useful at election time, just as at any other time, and extra charges should not be made during an election.
Why pay more at election time for identical service? It might be objected that, since the phone is used more often, this might explain the higher rates. I do not think a telephone is used constantly during the 60 days of an election campaign. It is there to receive calls rather than to make them. I am of the opinion that it is also to the discredit of the company that it should ask so much for its service simply because they know that during an election campaign, people have to use the telephone. It is not surprising, therefore, to see the company register a

Private Bills
gross income of $471 million a year. I think it is preposterous that such a company should have an income like that.
If there were a federal representative among the directors of the company, we could have questioned him this afternoon and secured from him the necessary information, that is to say why rates go up when there are more telephones, whereas the greater the number of subscribers to a newspaper, the cheaper the cost of printing it. Should it not be the same in the case of the Bell Telephone Company? If in one week 100 new subscribers are accepted, 100 new telephones will have to be paid at once but after a few months that expense will be written off.
A $6 or $6.50 charge is made when a telephone is installed but that gives rise to paradoxes. I have a telephone at home at 3200 St. Vallier east, in Quebec city, and another one at 576 St. Vallier. One moves but keeps the same telephone number and asks the company to change one's address in the telephone directory and to register the telephone in the name of Lucien instead of Georges; I was then told that such a change could be made, that it would be the same as having a new telephone, and that I would have to pay another $6.50. That is utterly ridiculous. Last year the number at 3200 St. Vallier was 172; the city changed the civic number but the subscriber was not charged any surplus at that time. However, there is a charge if you change Christian names.
Mr. Chairman, whenever things like that happen, it makes me a little angry. If in order to change a number some moving about were required; but no, they can remain at their desk and correct the name and address in the telephone directory, and the Bell Telephone Company collects $13 or $14 immediately. This is a net profit, not a gross one.
We would have many other things to say on this matter but our time is limited, 20 minutes only; so we must merely attend to the most pressing things.
What I think is most disgusting today, is that we have to discuss a bill like this one, whereas we could have allowed our hon. friends to keep on speaking about the flag- and they enjoy it indeed-and we could thus have saved the house a whole hour which would have enabled us to vote sooner.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, I think about a month ago somebody referred to this hour as the telephone hour. I believe it is an

appropriate name. It not only signifies the number of hours that have been devoted to this bill but I suppose it is an indirect compliment to the type of advertising that has made the Bell Telephone Company famous. In the many sessions during which I have listened to the debate surrounding this particular bill, I have heard outlined all of the sins of which the Bell Telephone Company is supposed to be guilty. During the earlier part of the debate I heard reference made to a point which I am not going to pursue because it was adequately refuted, namely that the Bell Telephone Company has been unfair to French speaking Canadians in Quebec. I think the point was adequately refuted, principally by members who realize that the president of the Bell Telephone Company, Mr. Marcel Vincent, is an excellent example of the type of business people that the French speaking community of Canada can produce.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I think that-


Gilles Grégoire: Are you trying to make a racial issue of it?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I cannot say whether the hon. member is standing or sitting because basically there is not that much difference.


Gilles Grégoire: I was just asking whether you are going to make it a racial issue. You would be doing wrong if you did.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the hon. member if I misunderstood his remarks. I think they were speculative.
The main charge made against the Bell Telephone Company is that it is big and that it is operating in a semi-monopolistic field. I do not feel it has anything to be ashamed of on either count. As I mentioned previously in debate, I can understand the philosophy of socialism and I respect those who believe in it. They feel that Bell is the type of company that should be crown operated, or placed under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I have no intention of debating the pros and cons of that philosophy but, Mr. Chairman, I do not think this hour is the appropriate time to bring forward the many grievances raised by the hon. member for York-Humber and others. There is a proper medium through which such grievances should be exposed, factually supported, or rejected by representatives of the company.
I do not always disagree with my good friend from York-Humber. I am one of those who are happy he did come back from his hunting trip in the north, and I think all of

us shared in his bounty by having a little bit of caribou meat. Further, I am always happy when he is gathering up bits and pieces of information to present to the house in his very unique style; but in all fairness to the Bell Telephone Company I do not think these are the type of things that should be discussed on this bill.
The bill simply asks that the board of directors be increased from 15 to 20. I agree with many of the things said during the debate by members of the Social Credit party and other hon. members. I think we are entitled to a fair explanation of why things are so paradoxical in the pricing of the Bell Telephone Company commodity, and why an increase in subscribership should mean an increase in price rather than the reverse. But I do suggest this is not the time for such explanation.
Many things have been said about Northern Electric. I do not think that normally I have to spring to its defence, but I feel very close to it since so many thousands of its employees reside in my constituency. But whether the relationship between Bell and Northern Electric is legitimate or logical is again something for the board of transport to determine, and not for hon. members during private members' hour.
There is, however, a fundamental issue at stake, namely the degree to which members of the house desire to go in interfering with the actual administration of companies, whether they be semi-monopolistic or private corporations. I feel it would be a dangerous precedent to place on the board of directors a number of persons not named by the shareholders of the company, but by the governor in council.
The fundamental thing which has been overlooked throughout this debate is that the Bell Telephone Company is a perfect example of what we like to think should be a large corporation, one that spends its money in this country, one that is owned by the people of Canada, one that operates as fairly and squarely as it can under the rules specified by the board of transport, one whose financial balance sheet can stand the close scrutiny not only of members of the house but of those watchdogs who at all times are looking for abuses of the rules and regulations which permit the company to operate.
Recently the Bell company pleaded that it cannot operate on its present ceiling of rates. Perhaps it is wrong. We cannot determine that now, but at least we know that the relationship last year between its profit
Private Bills
and operating capital was just slightly over 6 per cent. There are other facts we cannot refute, such as the fact 97 per cent of the shareholders are Canadian citizens and that 93 per cent of the shares are held by Canadian citizens. What other criteria do we want for any company that operates in Canada?
The Minister of Finance has a desire, as he expresses it, to Canadianize corporations operating in this country. Whether it is possible to do this through legislation, raising Canadian ownership 25 per cent, is a question which is debated in all financial circles. Many think it is impossible and others think it is imperative. But here we have a company, admittedly operating in a field that is semi-monopolistic, which is 97 per cent Canadian owned numerically, with 93 per cent of the total value of its shares owned by Canadians.
So far as I am concerned it is simply a matter of philosophy as to whether this type of operation is best administered through crown corporations or is best left in the hands of private industry. I respect people whose views differ from mine in this regard, except that I cannot see, if the Bell Telephone Company were made a crown corporation, that it would be any smaller, any more efficient or any more Canadian than the 93 per cent content it has at the moment. Further I have to say I would shudder to see the Bell Telephone Company made a crown corporation and subjected to the criticisms levelled at such organizations as the C.B.C. and the C.N.R. by people who, at times, are more interested in headlines than in facts.
The Social Credit party has moved an amendment which is simply an expansion of the original amendment proposed by the New Democratic party. The N.D.P. amendment asked that one of the new directors be appointed by the governor in council, and the Social Credit, with their usual generosity, have suggested that three be named by the governor in council.
As an admirer of the N.D.P. I am rather amazed that its philosophy in this particular instance and that of the Social Credit party could be so similar. Charles Lynch's column today advances a different theory. He comments on a speech made out west by one of the Tory members which suggested that the head of Social Credit out west become, what he knows he is, a good Conservative.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I suggest we treat the Bell Telephone Company during private members' hour in the same way as we treat all other corporations, namely

Private Bills
objectively. Legislation of this type involving a request for changes in internal management is usually treated objectively on the basis of the particular question before the house. The problem before the house is not whether the Bell Telephone Company's rates are justified or whether its relationship with Northern Electric is good or bad. It is simply whether approval should be given to a request to increase the number of directors from 15 to 20.
On the basis of the testimony which was given in an objective manner by representatives of the telephone company, as will be found in the fourth report of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines we have no right to assume that the company wishes to increase the number of its directors merely in order to satisfy some people who hold large blocks of shares. It could be so, but we have no right to assume it is the case. The hon. member for York-Humber, advancing this theory, told us that large blocks of shares were held by banks, lending institutions and trust companies. I would say: What better endorsation of the company could there be? The regulations protecting the safety of investments and of people's savings are strict, yet trust companies and the like are permitted to invest in the Bell Telephone Company. I think this is something on which the company should be commended. We who are close to the insurance act know that an endorsation of this type is not given to every corporation.
I would appeal to members of the committee to allow this bill to go through. All the grievances which may or may not be justified can very well be aired at the proper time and in the proper place, that is before the board of transport commissioners. If the relationship between the Bell Telephone Company and Northern Electric is not a proper one, then the courts of the land can be asked to make a decision on that question. It is not proper for us to take advantage of the private members' hour to hold up a legitimate request by the company, that in order to modernize its activities in a period of expansion it should be permitted to increase the membership of its board from 15 to 20. So I appeal to the committee to get back to a sense of objectivity and reach a decision strictly on the merits of the case, and on the particular question which is before us.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, the arguments used by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. [Mr. Mackasey.l
Mackasey) in favour of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada did not convince too many of us.
In my opinion, the fact that this company is not government-owned constitutes an injustice to the people of Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere. It is an injustice because this is an essential public utility.
I feel it is urgent for the provincial governments concerned to take over, not only the Bell Telephone Company, but the other independent telephone companies.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see why some people persist in defending such company. I am not ready to say that the whole administration of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is bad. Sure there are gaps; but a principle is involved here: such a public utility service should become publicly owned by the provincial governments concerned.
Besides, in the province of Quebec-


Mr. Choqueite:: May I ask a question?
Do you know that Mr. Rene Levesque is in favour of nationalizing the telephone?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I thank the hon. member. I was precisely coming to this question.
The Catholic farmers' union, at its last convention, recommended that the government of the province of Quebec should take appropriate steps to nationalize the Bell Telephone Company of Canada; St. Jean Baptiste societies did likewise.
I hope that at its next session the Quebec government will introduce a legislation to nationalize the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. Moreover, I am convinced that the province of Ontario will do the same if Quebec acts first.


Mr. Brown:: Could I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, you will decide whether I am out of order.
Power companies of the province of Quebec have been nationalized. Are the people of Quebec worse off for all that?


Mr. Turner:: May I put a question to the hon. member?
Does he advocate the nationalization of that company for economic or nationalistic reasons?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, there are both economic and nationalistic reasons. It is dis-

graceful that in the 20th century such a company could have so much control.
In Montreal, for instance, there is no competition against the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. The people are at the mercy of a single company.
I feel that it is abnormal in a democratic country for the Canadian people to put up with a trust of that kind.
I hope that Mr. Rene Levesque will follow his convictions in a positive way by introducing at the next session of the provincial legislature a bill to nationalize that company. I am convinced that the province of Ontario will follow suit as well as the other provinces.


Mr. Bechard:: Will the hon. member permit a question?
Did the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm advocate the same thing about nationalizing electricity during the 1962 provincial election campaign?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I did not take part in the 1962 election campaign.
It is a matter of principle. The arguments put forward by the hon. member for Verdun Eire, in my opinion, out of date. They do not stand up in 1964.


Mr. Peters:: I rise to ask through you, Mr. Chairman, whether in view of the number of inquiries which have been raised with regard to this bill the sponsor would be willing to withdraw it?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith.
Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, when we interrupted the debate 20220-684
Canadian Flag
at five o'clock to go into private members' hour I had been describing what seemed to me to be an obsession of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to push the report of the special flag committee through the house as quickly as possible to avoid letting the people of this country have a say in whether or not they wanted a new flag at all, and I remain unconvinced that the government has any evidence whatsoever that the majority of the people of this country find the Canadian red ensign offensive.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, no sooner had this special committee been set up than the Prime Minister took to the press, in keeping with what I call his pathetic obsession, and said, "We shall have a flag by Christmas that will be based on the maple leaf design." I ask you, are these the actions of a responsible person in touch with reality?
I asked about this strange compulsion of his and I wondered if in fact a commitment was being pursued, not a commitment to the people of Canada as a group, but to people within his own party within regions of this country, a commitment to the effect that he would wipe out the traditional symbols of this country before the end of 1964.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may remember that before five o'clock the Chair enjoined him to limit his remarks to the matter before the house at the moment. Perhaps his remarks at this point are introductory, but I would ask him to revert as quickly as possible to the particular point we have to consider at the moment.


David Vaughan Pugh: If I might speak on the point of order raised by Your Honour, may I say I think the hon. member is speaking on the necessity for a plebiscite. When he says the people of Canada want this opportunity rather than be at the mercy of the strange compulsion of one who wanted to thrust the flag on us, two things bear relation to the fact that the people of Canada do want a plebiscite-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This is not a point of order at all.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, with deference I shall accept your advice. I believe myself to be in order, but in view of the fact that this is the second time the Chair has brought it to my attention I shall discuss specifically the need for a plebiscite.
I shall close my statement with words to the effect that I shall be voting in favour of

Canadian Flag
a plebiscite, in favour of the amendment. There is no doubt in my mind what will be the fate of the amendment and the main motion. I expect the amendment will be defeated and the motion itself subsequently passed. I believe that the Canadian red ensign will be hauled down from the flag-staffs of this country before Christmas. I believe it will be the responsibility of the Prime Minister alone that this great UN man, this un-man and his ungovernment will be remembered in history as being in 1964 a petulant and perverse Santa Claus, the man who, as a Christmas present for his nation took away from his people their cherished national symbols and left in their place a petty division that will remain in this country for a hundred Christmases to come.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak at this time about this problem before the house I must express my appreciation that I have not been greeted with the levity from the other side of this chamber that met an earlier speaker today. I only rise to speak because I think there is nothing in this debate which should give cause for levity. I speak, not because I care about the flag we might have but because I care about Canada and the unity we must achieve if we are to fufil our destiny.
I do not speak in a happy vein because I do not feel that way about this particular issue. I had hoped I would not have to make this speech in this house, and that before now common sense would have prevailed because of the overwhelming evidence we have observed that, rather than enlarging the feeling of unity, we are destroying what unity we now have.
I remember reading something one philosophical writer wrote who put my position in words which I will have to paraphrase, as I do not have the quotation. He said, as I remember his remarks: Let us at least talk about it, you wisest of men, even though it seems bad; silence is worse because all truths suppressed become poisonous. I think talking about the issue, even though it seems bad, will in the end accomplish something.
I feel something has been accomplished since I spoke last, when I introduced a subamendment dealing with what I thought should be included in a plebiscite. At that time I remember saying that I did not think anyone who wished to achieve anything could build a sound and good case if he had to destroy and demean others who had other ideas. I think you will recall, as will the house, that at that time those who believed

and felt emotionally, deep in their hearts, that the Canadian red ensign represented the sacrifices of sons, daughters, mothers and husbands whom they did not wish to forget but wished to see honoured, were demeaned and scoffed at. I have not seen this take place in the debate since that time, and if I have accomplished nothing else by my efforts, I am proud that that sort of nonsense has ceased.
It was rather strange to me, having this assignment put into my hands tonight, and looking forward to carrying it out, that I received a pamphlet, which I gather is published by the C.B.C. This is not indicated, but the material appears on a C.B.C. program. It is entitled "Flanders' Fields", and on the cover it says "They are too near to be great. But our children shall understand when and how our fate was changed and by whose hand." I think those words are prophetic and in line with the reason I am speaking tonight in support of a plebiscite.
Those people can be forgotten and might well be forgotten as a result of the proposed action of an apparently inevitable decision that this house is being rushed into by those whose purposes we just do not understand. I know of no reason whatsoever to deal with the flag issue, unless it is that there are those who are completely impressed with the idea that by doing so they will bring greater unity to Canada. I could support such a move if the evidence was of such a nature, but there is no evidence of this nature.
I take it from what I have read and heard that this may satisfy a group which now has some dissatisfaction. This is not a group confined to one province, and I want to make that clear because I do not speak in that vein. This action will create another group which will not have only a problem, but deep bitterness. This will be a most unfortunate factor in the progress of our country for years to come.
To my way of thinking the amendment proposed is a sensible one, having in mind the evidence we have before us. It is an amendment which will allow the people to make the decision, rather than the decision being made by 265 of us here who, in the ordinary event, would speak convincingly, knowing what was wanted, what we were supposed to do, and what was right. In spite of the heavy mail, I would be the last one to suggest, however, that I have evidence of what all my constituents want. Certainly if my mail gives a similar indication to that given by recent polls, which today are accepted as having a margin of error not

greater than 5 per cent, I have overwhelming evidence that my instruction is to use every effort at my command to see that this apparently inevitable decision is not taken by this house.
One of the members who spoke before me during this debate-one of the few members from the other side who has spoken, the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Cadieux)- asked what more we wanted than 72 per cent of the committee supporting the design as recommended in the report. I suggest to him that that does not mean too much, because 20 years ago a committee of this house, composed of men as dedicated I presume as those who served on the latest flag committee, approved the report by a vote of 95.8 per cent. An astute leader of that time recognized the consequences of adopting a report that had received even such an overwhelming majority as that, and the report was never moved for concurrence and never dealt with by the house.
I wonder, in the present circumstances, which in my limited knowledge appear to me to be far more dangerous in their potential divisiveness than the circumstances surrounding the report of the committee 20 years ago, whether the wise course has been followed in moving concurrence. I have read much about this debate and listened to many expressions of opinion, and when 1 spoke before I said I did not understand the Prime Minister's apparent obsession with this matter in light of the evidence. One individual who expressed himself on this matter commenced his comments by saying:
What bugs Pearson? Is it love of exerting power over others against their will? Is it a misguided streak of Tom Sawyer adventure in his nature that leads him to go his own way? It could be; but I am inclined to think he took on a job too big for him and is showing an obduracy that inevitably causes trouble.
I do not like to engage in personal comments on matters of substance such as the one now before us, and it has not been one of my traits. I have a rather charitable nature that precludes me from indulging in personalities. But we have come to the point where I have to speak strongly because I feel I have no other choice.
I am reminded, as I proceed to make my case for a plebiscite, of the remarks of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) when he spoke in seconding the motion to concur in the report. As found on page 10694 of Hansard he said in his last sentence:
20220-684J
Canadian Flag
I hope that in time it will win the allegiance of the Canadian people.
What stronger evidence could you have than that? Even though he is supporting concurrence in the report at this time, he recognizes the dangers in rushing into this inevitable decision. Let us face it. None of us is so silly that he or she does not recognize what that decision will be when the vote comes. I have never indulged or found much pleasure in standing before a mirror and speaking and gesticulating to find out whether or not I was effective. It has tried me sorely in sitting here throughout this debate and listening to those who have been trying to contribute sincerely and with some cause to a proper solution of this matter, to note that in speaking to the other side of the chamber and other sections of the house they have been addressing what appears to be a stone wall. Any member who has looked around the house, seen the attitudes and heard the interjections and the nonsense recognizes what the situation is, because it is evident there are no open minds in other parts of the house.
I think I cannot make my case properly without referring to some of the remarks made by other speakers in this debate. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), the great lover, spoke in this debate. I have listened to him speak several times on this subject. I know that he would have to cry a wee drop if the red ensign came down. He said that. I know that he would love the Pearson pennant. He belaboured my leader for calling it the troika flag. You would think that my leader was the first to suggest that this pennant was the troika flag. I should like to remind him that the idea of calling it the troika flag originated with the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) who, in speaking outside the house about the three maple leaves design, said that one was for the English, one was for the French and the other was for the rest of us. That was what gave rise to calling it the troika flag. It was the troika love of the hon. member for Leeds. When I heard him say that he loved the flag recommended by the committee I wondered whether he had been playing the old children's game we used to play of picking petals off a daisy and saying "I love you, I love you not". My experience was that you did not always wind up with "I love you"; but apparently he has had a run of luck far beyond anything I have ever heard of before.

Canadian Flag
In making my case for why I think there should be a plebiscite I want to refer to the speech of my colleague, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard). I want to quote some of his words as found on page 10731 of Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I am always glad to have evidence of the sort of attention being paid to my remarks by those who most of the time make remarks while seated, and who I think must be handicapped and are probably drawing the disabled allowance. When I have something to say I choose to stand on my feet and to say it in the proper, responsible manner. My colleague from Labelle uttered these words:
We Quebeckers want to keep jealously our traditions and our civil law. And yet. on the flag issue, when the Conservative party from our leader down want to give us a flag establishing exactly this ethnic, historic and cultural duality we say: No. We want one flag for one Canada.
Just as astonishing is the reaction of our English speaking colleagues who always showed a preference for Canadian standardization and who, all of a sudden, offer us half of the flag to put the French fact on it.
He went on to make a decision that I regret because I cannot accept it as a positive decision in the climate of this country today. I do want to say though that in his remarks there were words that gave me much to consider, words that I think were clear in trying to explain why we have a difference of view on this matter. I think he dealt with the subject very well and had he been able to accept the statements I read and on that basis have reached some degree of conciliation I believe that both of us could have had a part in doing something of great service to our country.
One of the finest speeches I have heard in all the time that this issue has been before the house was made this afternoon by my colleague, the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth). I do not have the ability to speak in the same fashion as he did because he approached the status of an outstanding orator in the way he made his remarks this afternoon, and his evident sincerity could not be denied by anyone. I think his remarks put the case for a plebiscite clearly and distinctly and, as I say, I am sorry that minds seem to be closed to doing anything or considering any course that might accomplish what we want to accomplish and would overcome the difficulties and the results that we now face.
IMr. More.]
I am not one who appreciates levity when we are speaking about serious matters and I do not appreciate interjections that do not really bear on the subject which comes from the other side of the house. I often regret that remarks made in this way get into Hansard. I regret that in a debate of this kind a minister of the crown should be on Hansard as having told a member to shut up.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I think it is a shame. I remember that when the hon. lady first entered the house she sat on this side and one day I introduced myself to her in what I thought was a very friendly fashion. She said to me: "I have got a sharp tongue. I am glad you did it today because after I speak you might not feel that way." I said then that if she wanted to be treated like a lady all she had to do was act like one.
I do not challenge that those who were members of the committee were diligent and worked hard at their task. I am not, however, able to agree with the result of that dedication and effort. It has not been what I expected or what the country expected. As I say, without any question they worked extremely long hours and held many meetings. I do not want to make exceptions, but I do want to say that from what I have learned I think the chairman of this committee acted properly at all times. I think we owe it to a chairman in a difficult position like that, when he comes out with completely clean colours, to express our sentiments publicly and give him credit for it. I want to join with all those who have, by their remarks, honoured him. The first time any member of the committee said anything or did anything the chairman felt was not true or was not fair, he immediately stopped him.
The flag this committee brought forward may well become the flag of Canada. At this stage I am not prepared to forecast. I do say that if it does, then the years ahead will be most difficult. I say this, sir, because we have evidence from the polls that have been conducted from time to time that this is an emotional issue charged with the memories of sacrifices that a great many of our people hold dear. We should recognize this fact sincerely and not demean those memories. There will be bitterness if this flag is adopted. I believe all serious minded members of parliament should seek to avoid this at all costs. On the basis of polls conducted in the area, I believe that the overwhelming majority of

people want the Canadian red ensign maintained as our flag.
However, I have no doubts whatever that they are prepared to conciliate and to try to reach common ground with those in Canada who do not agree, on the basis that they would be allowed to participate in this decision. I think they would accept the result, and this would remove the bitterness and bring us all together. Each of us, in our way, would have played a part in solving this problem in our country. The other day I picked up the Gazette, I think it was, and found a little poem by Christine L. Henderson entitled "(Don't) Rally Round the Flag!". This refers to the committee report, and reads as follows: Fifteen learned men for 40 days They thought and thought,
But alas, why think
When Learned Thought arrives at naught!
Yet for their Nation and with great elation At 2,000 flags they gaze in a maze At the wealth of knowledge these displayed I -Tradition, history, symbols pied,
And heraldry and what else beside!
-Now they come to the Head and present A Flag, (yes, a flag of sorts) with good intent-
-One leaf and two red blobs, there's nothing in it!
(A child could have done it in a minute.)
Feelings such as these are not confined to one who writes poetry, and I say that knowingly. When large numbers of our Canadian population have sacrifices made on the field of battle which they wish to remember, this parliament is not doing its duty when, for the sake of trying to be on the winning team or to achieve political advantage and become known in history as those who did it, they seek to rush us to this inevitable solution.
Last year I had the privilege of spending a month in Europe. There were some 80 of us, because I joined a tour who went from country to country. Most of us were Canadians. There were Canadians from Quebec and from every part of Canada. We started off by meeting what we felt were some rebuffs as we went along. Finally we discovered we were being mistaken for tourists from another country. We got a Canadian red ensign and put it on our bus. From that time forward our reception was different. It was one that we welcomed because it indicated that everywhere we went this flag was recognized and we were treated as Canadians.
I recall well that our tour did not include Vimy. We were in Brussels at night and we were supposed to head for Paris. There were arrangements that we were going to be pressured to keep. However we said we did not care; we were willing to miss lunch if necessary in order to go to Vimy. We went to
Canadian Flag
Vimy. It was a windy day. We got out of that bus, and there was this beautiful monument to the sacrifices of thousands of Canadians. If I remember correctly there were 6,000 marked graves and about 12,000 names of those who were never found, never identified. The Canadian red ensign was flying in that brisk breeze. I stood there with my Canadian friends from Quebec, and I am telling you that after three weeks on the road in that bus, most of us felt we were home. When you pull that flag down around this world, as you seem set to do now regardless of the consequences, something is going to be lost, and lost forever. I for one, sir, have to make a contribution, regardless of the criticism, to try to wake up the members of this parliament to a situation that, to say the least is dangerous to the future of this country.
I know of no other way, Mr. Speaker, now that we have reached this stage, than to forget that we are on different teams, to forget that we represent different parties, and to conclude that we are all Canadians; that we have one duty in this regard and that is to get politics out of this question in order to give people a chance to play a role in making a choice and contributing toward a better and more united Canada.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, I had not expected to speak on this amendment. However, in the last few days I have seen some actions on the part of some hon. members opposite, a very few in number, and especially those in the small group in the corner who have been doing nothing during this flag debate except interjecting, raising phony points of privilege and contributing nothing to the debate.
I support wholeheartedly the request for a plebiscite in this flag issue. This party has fought for the retention of the red ensign, or a modification of it. We have fought for the retention of the symbols which are so dear to many of us in this country-the union jack and the fleur-de-lis. But we have seen our efforts failing. They have failed because the minor parties have co-operated with the government in making agreements behind the curtains, and have left us to fight this issue alone. We had hoped some time ago to get the support of the minor parties, because in 1963 the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) said of the N.D.P. that they had received the embrace, if unwelcome, of the communist party of Canada. In the absence of this support of the minor parties we are endeavouring to put the issue before the people on a plebiscite. The Minister of Trans-

Canadian Flag
port, also in 1963, said that the leader of the Social Credit party was the most pathetic creature he had ever seen in his lifetime. He said he had a Pepsodent smile and a nice hair cut. Therefore we must get this issue before the people.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has caused great disunity across this country by his appointment of the "B and B gang" and by bringing the flag issue to this house. The only way to settle it is by way of plebiscite. We have looked for support from the other side of the house, but what do we find? The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) is not afraid to express his opinions. But as for the rest of the members opposite, they seem to be afraid to speak their minds. We have heard nothing from the hon. gentlemen on the front benches, save the intervention of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) yesterday when the former minister of labour was speaking. We also heard from the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) when an hon. member on this side from Nova Scotia was speaking in favour of the red ensign. The hon. member for Kootenay East said that it was a rotten speech; but I would remind him that if we are not to stand up in this house to express our views as to a national flag, then we must take the matter to the people. Then yesterday, to the astonishment of this house-I do not think this has ever happened before-when a member of this party was speaking a minister of the crown, the minister of health and welfare, interjected and said, as reported at page 10780 of Hansard:
May I suggest to the hon. member that the simplest way possible of achieving that is to sit down, shut up and let the matter come to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Yes; hon. gentlemen opposite clap and enjoy that. I see even the "minister of bumper stickers" is back and is clapping.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have listened to the hon. member with as much indulgence as possible during the last few minutes but I would invite him to confine his remarks to the matter which is being considered by the house.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 1 was explaining why we should have a plebiscite. Hon. members opposite keep interjecting or raising their voices but I am prepared to answer any questions they might like to bring up.
As I say, we want to put this matter to the people, which is the only way to clear

up the issue. The Prime Minister brought before the house a flag and informed us it was going to be his flag. He also informed us that the red ensign was too close a resemblance to the merchant flag of Great Britain. He wanted to rescind the red ensign in consequence, and force upon the people of Canada a flag which resembled the Russian merchant flag. This is why we want the people to vote on this issue. We want democracy in this country, which is why we want a plebiscite. I understand that the Prime Minister received a telegram from the communist party supporting the proposal for a new Canadian flag, which makes me stop and wonder why this issue is being forced on the Canadian people. That is why we are demanding a plebiscite.


Mr. Barnett:: Then vote for it.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You see what we are up against, Mr. Speaker? These little babbling brooks down at the end are at it again tonight.
We hear a lot being said to the effect that this is an appeasement to the province of Quebec, and 1 do not like to hear that. I am sure there are many people in the province of Quebec who would like a plebiscite on the flag. In this connection I should just like to quote this brief article written by Peter Stursberg:
The Liberal party has drifted toward the right, into the hands of the mediaeval Montreal Liberals who don't really care about Quebec or the French Canadians but are ready to use them to stay in power.
We do not like that, Mr. Speaker. We want the people to vote on the flag. There are hundreds of farmers in the province of Quebec in great need of help. They are starving and neglected. The Prime Minister was questioned when he was at Amherst, Nova Scotia, and was asked whether he thought Quebec would approve of any flag without the fleur-de-lis on it, and he replied that the Quebec members in the cabinet would decide what the design would be. Again I do not agree with that. I think it is time this matter came before the Canadian people.
As I have said before, we have farmers in Quebec in need of assistance. We find there is much more important business to bring before parliament than this flag issue. We should have the labour code before this parliament rather than the flag issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Division


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I therefore move, seconded	Granger	Morisonby my hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon) that the debate be now adjourned.	Gray Greene Guay	Mullally Munro Nicholson


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready	Hahn Harley	Nixon O'Keefefor the question?	Hellyer	Olson


Some hon. Members:: Aye.		Herridge Honey	Otto Patterson
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Small-		Howe (Hamilton South) Paul Jewett. Miss Pennell	
wood) which was	negatived on the following	Klein	Perrondivision:	Knowles	PigeonKonantz, Mrs.	PilonYEAS	Lachance	PlourdeMessrs:	LaMarsh, Miss	Prud'hommeLamontagne	ReganAlkenbrack	Maclnnis	Laniel	RichardBell	MacLean (Queens)	Latulippe	Rideout. Mrs.Cadieu (Meadow Lake) Macquarrie	Laverdiere	RinfretCantelon	MacRae	Leblanc	RobichaudCardiff	McIntosh	Lessard (Lake St. John) Rochon	Chatterton	Madill	Lessard (St. Henry)	RockChurchill	Millar	Lloyd	RondeauClancy	Monteith	Loiselle	RouleauCoates	Moore	Legault	RyanCowan	More	Macdonald	Sauv6Danforth	Muir (Cape Breton	MacEachen	StewartDinsdale	North and Victoria)	Mcllraith	TardifDoucett	Muir (Lisgar)	McLean (Charlotte)	TeilletEnns	Nugent	McMillan	TempleFane	Ormiston	McNulty	TremblayFleming (Okanagan	- Pascoe	McWilliam	TuckerRevelstoke)	Pugh	Marcoux	TurnerGundlock	Rheaume	Martin (Timmins)	WahnHales	Ricard	Mather	WalkerHomer (The Battlefords) Rynard	Matheson	Watson (Chdteauguay-Howe (Wellington-	Smallwood	Matte	Huntingdon-Laprairie)Huron)	Starr	Mitchell	WebsterIrvine	Stefanson	Moreau	Whelan-129.Jones, Mrs.	Stenson	Jorgenson	Thomas	Mr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion	Kennedy	Wadds, Mrs.	lost.	Kindt	Watson (Assiniboia)	Loney	Webb	Mr. Skoreyko: Mr.	Speaker, I was pairedMacEwan	Winkler-55.	with the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.). Had	NAYS	I voted, I would have voted for the motion.	Messrs:	Some hon. Members	: Question.Armstrong	ChapdelaineAsselin (Notre Dame	Choquettede Grace)	ChretienAsselin (Richmond-	Cote (Chicoutimi)Wolfe)	Cote (Longueuil)Badanai	CrossmanBalcer	CyrBarnett	DavisBasford	DeachmanBatten	DeschateletsBeaule	DionneBechard	DouglasBeer	DrouinBenidickson	DruryBenson	DubeBlouin	DupuisBoulanger	EmardBoutin	EudesB re win	FairweatherBrown	FavreauByrne	GauthierCadieux (Terrebonne)	GelberCameron (High Park)	GendronCantin	GirouardCardin	GodinCarter	Gordon


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any additional pairs to be declared?
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the division bells on the motion to adjourn the flag debate brought the moment of truth to the government members. Ever since Monday, government members have been making interjections calling for an end of this debate. When they had the opportunity to put off the flag debate and get on with more pressing business of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Ernest Pascoe: -they voted to keep the debate going.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the hon. member knows he cannot reflect on a vote of the

Canadian Flag
house. I suggest that perhaps at this point he should limit his remarks to the amendment now before the house.


James Ernest Pascoe: I was just trying to pave the way to asking if now government members would refrain from interjecting.
I am taking part in this debate on the amendment to the report of the flag committee because I consider it is my duty to do so. I consider that it is the duty, the direct obligation, of each member of parliament to explain to his or her constituents how he or she stands on this very emotional flag issue. Each member should have regard for his or her responsibilities to constituents and make a declaration for or against the attempt to thrust on Canadians this red and white flag, when there is no evidence that anyone but the most rabid government supporters want it. There has been no country-wide call for a red maple leaf flag. There is no indication how such a flag would be received. I should say that there is every indication that it will not be received and will arouse nothing but antagonism in the country.
Surely, in a decision as emotional and personal as the selection of a flag under which they and future generations will live, the Canadian people should make the choice. It is for this reason we are calling for a plebiscite. As I have said, it is up to each one in this house, whether on the opposition side or the government side, to state clearly on Hansard, the official record, his or her position regarding a plebiscite. We should give the reasons for our stand. I think too, Mr. Speaker, we should put on the record how our constituents feel about a plebiscite. I am sure all members have been told how their constituents feel. I know that I have received many letters, and a little later I will put a few of these on the record. We in the opposition are making our stand for a plebiscite very clear. Government supporters, not only the 47 Liberals from Quebec but those from English speaking areas of Canada, should do the same. As I have said, they have an obligation to their constituents.
Ever since Monday we have heard very little from the government members except hoots and jeers. Apparently government members wish to cut off discussion on the flag as quickly as possible-at least, we thought they wanted to stop the debate, until they had an opportunity a short time ago to do so. Evidently they want to have the red ensign scrapped and a new red and white flag substituted, with as little public involvement as possible. This must be the explana-

tion for their attempts to cut off debate; there is no other reason apparent. They want to force a flag vote in the house and then tell the Canadian people they must accept it. This appears to be government strategy. Apparently the strategists have counted noses in the house and are sure that, with the continued support of the minority groups in the far corner who want anything but the Canadian red ensign, they can win the flag vote. Perhaps they can win the flag vote with the help of those against having the union jack anywhere on our flag. However, this forced vote will not win flag support across Canada. Only a flag decision by plebiscite will do this, and it is for this reason we are calling for a plebiscite. We believe there should be complete public involvement in any choice of a new flag. Only by holding a plebiscite can this be arranged. That is why so many of us will be speaking on the issue between now and Christmas. We will continue to present arguments for a flag plebiscite. If the government members remain silent I am sure their constituents will wonder why. I think their constituents already know why government supporters sit in silence in their seats, and in this connection I have a clipping 1 should like to read to the silent government members entitled "The folly of silence".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member that he cannot quote editorials in newspapers which reflect on a current debate in the house.


James Ernest Pascoe: With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, this editorial does not reflect on a current debate but on the behaviour of some hon. members. It is dealing with why so few government supporters speak. It is also a very strong argument for a plebiscite, which is why I want to put it on record. The article is as follows:
It is the utmost folly-it is just short of suicide-to take the position that citizens of any country should hold their tongues for fear of causing distress to the immediate and sometimes tortuous policies of their leaders.
I think that is a good argument for a plebiscite because it refers to the feelings of citizens of the country. This statement was made by the late Wendell L. Willkie. It is folly for citizens not to speak out against stubborn leaders on matters of great concern to them. Ordinary citizens, of course, cannot state their views here in the house, but they can certainly do so outside. That is why we

are supporting a plebiscite, so the people are given a chance to speak outside.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Would the hon. member permit a question?


James Ernest Pascoe: After I am through. I think this brief quotation sums up the argument for a plebiscite. The reference to holding tongues reminds me that there is a great deal of tongue holding among hon. gentlemen opposite. We have a very emotional issue facing us, involving the possible scrapping of a flag steeped in history and which is symbolic of the foundation and character of our country. There should be no wall of silence anywhere in this house. Every hon. member should get up and explain to their constituents just how they stand on this matter.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is determined no other government business will be given priority over the flag. He is the one who will decide whether we continue the flag debate or turn the attention of parliament to more pressing items, such as the labour code and the railway question. As a result of the stand which has been taken by the Prime Minister it appears there will be many more days, perhaps weeks, taken up on the flag debate, which means there will be plenty of time for government members to explain why they are determined to foist a new flag on Canadians and why they do not want to give the Canadian people the chance to express their views on a plebiscite. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the people should have the opportunity to decide whether or not they want a flag stripped of all the symbols of our history and tradition. They should be able to vote on an issue brought on by pressure which is not exerted by all parts of Canada. As you yourself said, Mr. Speaker, in your ruling on Wednesday on the amendment, the flag issue has a great emotional impact on everyone.
If most of the government members mean to take no greater part in the debate than to jeer, then at least all members of the flag committee should speak. They should answer these three questions: Why was the Canadian red ensign rejected so flatly by all Liberal committee members? Why was there a unanimous vote in the committee that Canada should have only one flag, and then a sudden change of mind and a later amendment to have two flags? Why was the proposed compromise flag bearing the symbols of our past history turned down? These are the three essential questions that each member of the flag committee should answer during this debate.
Canadian Flag
Perhaps I am doing the Liberal flag committee members an injustice when I suggest that they intend to remain silent. Perhaps each one is going to speak. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) will find it difficult to refrain from baring his innermost thoughts. He finds it so easy to make revelations to the press. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra-and I think I am in order in bringing this out- received 41.7 per cent of the total vote in his constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member must have some doubt whether this is relevant. At this stage of the debate, or I suggest at any time, he cannot refer in such a personal way to another member of the house.


James Ernest Pascoe: I was just trying to bring out the point that none of the members of the flag committee were speaking for the majority of the people, which is why I think there should be a plebiscite.
In answer to my challenge to all members to speak and make a sort of report to their constituents, I want to make my own stand clear. I have already spoken in favour of the Canadian red ensign and I see no reason at all why it should be scrapped. It is a beautiful flag steeped in 100 years of tradition. However, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of national acceptance some modification of the red ensign is proposed, and I would agree with this. My stand is that some symbols of our past history must remain, because a country which does not honour its past has a very uncertain future. What is wrong with preserving our past history as an example for future generations? In a speech reported in Hansard at page 4651 of June 24, the Prime Minister said:
Attachment to tradition is an important element in a country that wishes to progress.
These words have a direct bearing on our effort to have a plebiscite on the flag issue.
The Newfoundland member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) is reported in Hansard of June 30, page 4912 as saying that we should "retain those things of our past for which we have so much genuine affection and loyalty". I certainly agree with that statement. If the flag debate continues perhaps he will stand up and repeat this laudable statement. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) speaking in French in the house last week called for British justice. This is a tradition of Canada and it is symbolized by the union jack

Canadian Flag
in our flag. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) in the course of a recent television interview referred to our form of British government. This is also part of our tradition represented by the union jack in our flag. I mention these comments in order to emphasize our contention that the people of Canada should be consulted by means of a plebiscite before their present flag is taken from them.
To put it directly on record I will read again in part the amendment we propose to the report of the flag committee:
However, as the final vote of the committee did not reveal a sufficient degree of unanimity for the proposed design for a national flag for Canada, your committee therefore recommends that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to conduct a plebiscite to be held at the next general election in order that the Canadian people may be given their rightful opportunity to declare their choice concerning a national flag.
I think that clearly outlines the situation before us.
In an earlier speech I referred to the hundreds of letters I have received from constituents in support of the Canadian red ensign. At that time I listed the many references in them to the need for deciding the flag issue by means of a plebiscite. I will not repeat those statements now. I will merely say that many of the letters I receive continue to support the stand taken by my party on this flag issue. This is in direct contradiction to press reports which seek to indicate that public concern over the flag has declined. I have received letters recently from towns in my constituency supporting our stand on this issue. I received three today, from one of which I quote the following:
As my representative at Ottawa, please insist on the inclusion of the union jack in any proposed flag. In the interests of Canadian unity we should have one flag only.
Members on the government side who have expressed opposition to a plebiscite claim they can speak for their constituents. I agree that under our democratic system of government we were elected to vote as parliamentary representatives on behalf of our ridings with respect to all political and economic matters, with regard to which decisions can be altered later, if necessary. But voting to substitute a single maple leaf flag for the red ensign is something very different. This is a very emotional issue. It is an issue which calls for a majority decision by the Canadian people. As our amendment suggests, this could be sought at the next election, which will probably come by or before next June. Canadians will be better prepared to accept the result of a plebiscite than they are to accept the result of a vote on party lines in parliament. I would think the Prime Minister would welcome this means of solving a difficult problem.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


James Ernest Pascoe: I agree with the speeches made by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth) and the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) who pointed out very cogently how the Canadian people would be affected if the flag were changed.
May I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: May I have the leave of the house to revert to motions?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have leave of this house to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 4, 1964
The house met at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith.
James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was presenting submissions in support of the amendment to the flag committee report. This amendment calls for a plebiscite which would give to the Canadian people an opportunity of making their own decision on the flag issue. The proposal is to hold a plebiscite during the next federal election, which I said was likely to be held by or before next June.
I commented on the wall of silence on the government side during this flag debate, and especially on our call for a plebiscite. There certainly has been a wall of silence over there, except for the jeers and heckling as we speak out for the millions of Canadians who resent the attempt to scrap the Canadian red ensign. I stated that it is the obligation of each one of us to state very clearly for the Hansard record his or her position on the flag issue, and especially on the call for a plebiscite.
I point out that if the Prime Minister continues to insist that the red and white maple leaf flag have priority over more important government business, such as the labour code and the railway problem, this debate will carry on until Christmas. This will give each member of parliament plenty of time to explain why he or she is for or against the flag plebiscite. I am sure the Canadian people are waiting to hear from the Liberal members why it is so necessary to rush the flag vote, and why they are opposed to a plebiscite. Perhaps they are not completely opposed, but they certainly have not stood up in their places and spoken one way or the other.
20220-685J
We on the opposition side are making our stand in favour of a plebiscite very clear. Government members, not only the 47 Liberals from Quebec but those from the English speaking area of Canada as well, should do the same. They certainly owe it to their constituents to make their position clear. If they are opposed to letting the Canadian people decide the flag issue for themselves, then surely they are expected to explain to their constituents why they are taking this stand.
Emotions have been arised across the country. What each member is doing in regard to the flag question is being watched very closely. Statements have been made that a plebiscite on the flag would cause ill feelings and would create divisions. I believe a clear appraisal of the situation would reveal that any change in our flag, without holding a plebiscite, would be much more divisive. Some hon. members may not accept that statement but I repeat, and ask them to consider carefully, that greater divisions will be created if a flag is imposed on Canadians without a plebiscite to allow them to make the choice for themselves.
We realize that plebiscites or referendums are not the usual procedure under democratic government, but they do have a place in issues affecting the people in a particular manner. The changing of a flag is just such an issue, and that is why we are stressing the need for a plebiscite. Plebiscites have been held on other occasions to settle emotional questions of great concern to the people. The 1942 plebiscite on conscription was held to allow the Mackenzie King government break an earlier commitment not to call up men for overseas service.
If I may be permitted to refer to local matters, I would point out that in the coming Ottawa civic election a referendum will be held on fluoridation and Sunday sports to let voters decide these issues themselves. It has been argued that we are in parliament to make decisions but Ottawa has a mayor, a board of control and a council, yet they are referring these matters directly to the people because of their significance to each individual voter. In my own constituency there was a referendum in the municipal election on the question of building a new hospital. The

Canadian Flag
people there have a mayor and reeve who could have decided the matter, but they put it up to the people to decide and I am happy to report that the people decided in favour of the hospital.
Press reports claim that public interest in the flag issue has dropped off. This is not the situation in my constituency, and I am sure it is not in a great many other constituencies. I admit we are not receiving as many letters on the flag issue as we did just after the Prime Minister unveiled his three maple leaf design, but most of the correspondence I receive from my constituents still carries a note in support of our stand. As I stated last night, I am receiving letters every day asking us to continue out stand on the flag issue. I have one here that I received yesterday and I want to put it on the record again. It reads:
Dear Sir,
As my representative at Ottawa, please insist on the inclusion of the union jack in any proposed flag. In the interests of Canadian unity we should have one flag only.
I am sure government members have received letters from the Canadian Corps Association, and that they will agree with me its interest and concern in the flag issue are not dropping.
Our members have made reference to the stand taken by the Canadian Corps Association. I should like to place on record in order of the dates on which they were received a number of letters from this association to show that the demand for a plebiscite is continuing; indeed, I believe it is increasing. On April 20 the Canadian Corps Association said in a letter that the government's course of action in this matter should be determined only by a plebiscite. On June 8 the association wrote:
With such divided opinion throughout Canada on the flag question we cannot understand why Mr. Pearson will not allow the people of Canada an opportunity to choose between the Canadian red ensign and his new suggested maple leaf choice.
At that time it was three maple leaves. Then on August 5-interest in the need for a plebiscite was still continuing and growing-a letter from the corps stated:
The Canadian Corps Association dominion command again emphatically requests the Prime Minister of Canada and parliament as a whole to place this subject before the people at the next regular general election. Let the voters of Canada finalize this matter.
That is exactly what we are asking. Then on November 27, only a short time ago, another letter came from the corps as follows:

The Canadian Corps Association dominion command at this time reiterates that no change in Canada's present national flag should be made unless the government is so instructed by the citizens of Canada by means of a plebiscite vote conducted in conjunction with the next general election.
I have read those four letters and referred to the dates on which they were written to show that the demand for a plebiscite is continuing. The Canadian corps represents a very large body of opinion.
In conclusion I express the hope that supporters of the government will express their views on the subject of a plebiscite in the course of this debate. As has been said many times, we all realize that the scrapping of a flag is a very emotional issue. I have spoken on this matter before, but I feel compelled to speak again on this amendment to express my views. I hope all members across the way will take the opportunity to express their views. The Canadian people think they should be allowed to decide for or against a new flag. We also believe this. In all sincerity I say that a decision on the flag by means of a plebiscite would be much more widely accepted than the compulsory imposition of a flag selected by a divided vote in parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler).


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Things must be getting tough.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those remarks from the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). They are typical of what he might interject into any debate, particularly when I am involved. I would like to say once again that I would certainly appreciate hearing his views from the floor, and not from his seat. First of all I would like to refer to Hansard for December 3, 1964, page 10,803, the right hand column, where Your Honour, in correcting the speaker who had the floor, used these words:
It seems to me that he Is away off the point of a plebiscite, how it should be held, where it should be held, when it should be held and if it should be held.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, you feel those are the points which are relevant in this particular debate. I agree with those points and would like to add one more, with Your Honour's concurrence; that is, why it should be held. On that premise, and in connection with the amendment that is before us, I would like to make a few remarks.
I believe that we as members of the opposition are fulfilling a very useful purpose in

this debate. We are fulfilling a very useful purpose today, as we have during all this session thus far. It is obvious that the government and some members of other parties do not agree with the holding of such a plebiscite in our fair country. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I also am not too imbued with the idea of a plebiscite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I believe I made that very clear in my speech in this chamber on August 12, which was one of the earlier speeches in the debate after it had been resumed. On that occasion I pressed the government and pleaded with the Prime Minister to send the question to a committee. After that date I had the pleasure of attending an international conference and was away from the house for a considerable period of time; and of course when I returned on September 8 the house was still seized with the resolution presented by the government.
I believe that today the opposition has no other course to follow. The government has put the opposition in such a narrow position, without endeavouring to display any degree of co-operation, that we have no alternative but to take this course on behalf of the people of Canada, and I believe the majority of the people of Canada; the figure of 60 per cent was quoted in a recent poll, but I believe it is 64 per cent. I believe we have the right to speak for these people, and if it is their wish that we have a plebiscite, I am willing to accept their judgment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that had the government moved in the proper direction and at the proper time in sending this question to a committee, it would have been resolved.
I had not intended to use these words at this juncture of my remarks, but I am forced to do so. The manner in which the subject was presented to this house by the Minister of Transport indicates to me that the old philosophy of the days of Mackenzie King has been adopted. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the ghost of Mackenzie King is now treading the corridors of the House of Commons, because one can determine that the presentation of this subject, which will have divisive results in our country, is an endeavour to put on the opposition the blame for any crisis that occurs. They seem to be following the course of allowing the crisis to become imminent and then step-
Canadian Flag
ping in and solving it as the benefactors of the electorate. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that the Minister of Transport has indeed been in communication with the previous prime minister and maybe even received some direction, because the plan is working quite well thus far and he has the opposition, as I said, in a very narrow corner.


Mr. Greene:: Has the opposition ever been anywhere else?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I think the humiliating defeat the hon. member for Renfrew South suffered in Toronto should be enough to keep his mouth shut for a few days, unless he wishes to rise in his place and make a speech. He is another one of those professional hecklers we could well do without.
I ask that hon. member and this house, Mr. Speaker, whether the flag debate of today is of such consequence to this country that we can afford to ignore every major daily newspaper. It may be that the government members are now considering a referendum, even though it may be undesirable to them. Because of my great respect for individuals outside this house and for the officers of this house, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to name any minister or bring the Prime Minister into this, but in view of the picture presented to us today by various newspapers in this country I believe there should be some change of heart. I have here the front page of the Montreal Star, the front page of the Montreal Gazette, the front page of the Toronto Globe and Mail, the front page of last night's Toronto Telegram and the front page of last night's Toronto Star, all of which seem to put the government in a pretty sorry mess. Where is the great zeal on the part of members on that side for the people of this country? Where is the great feeling they have for the pension plan? Where is the great feeling of those members in regard to medicare? What has happened to the government's attitude in regard to the labour legislation for which we are all waiting? What has happened to the government's attitude in respect of many of the other things about which we have heard so much? Because of the obvious situation presented by the newspapers of this country perhaps the government will change its mind and give serious consideration to the amendment respecting a plebiscite which is now before us.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Why do you filibuster the way you do?

Canadian Flag


Eric Alfred Winkler: The President of the Privy Council has used the word "filibuster". Let me remind that hon. gentleman, whom I consider as a friend, that while I have not taken a daily count, at the last count I took of the measures dealt with by this house the number was something over 60. If my memory serves me correctly that is well beyond the number of legislative measures dealt with during any session by any parliament.


George James McIlraith: That is good government.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You cannot have obstruction on the one hand and good government on the other hand. Had it not been for the opposition, where would these measures now be? In this regard I will give as much credit to my friends on our left as we take ourselves. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, let us have no more remarks from the President of the Privy Council about a filibuster.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to read to you and to the house from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Monday, November 23 having regard to a speech made by the Prime Minister. I do not think the government or its supporters will deny these words by the right hon. Prime Minister, who said, as reported in that article:
"We have spent 23 days in the House of Commons debating the flag-which I think is too long -but those 23 days were at a time when normally we should have been having a holiday so while we may have spent a long time we have not sacrificed parliamentary business in doing it," he said.
Does that smack of obstructionism, Mr. Speaker? I now turn to the transcript of an interview of the Minister of Agriculture. It is perhaps a good thing we are having the flag debate at this time because that minister can stay away from the house now without his absence being too conspicuous.


Mr. Moreau:: Where is Mr. Balcer?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I may remind the hon. member for York-Scarborough that as I read of the situation in the newspapers these days, if it were not for certain events things would be a little different there as well.
The Minister of Agriculture had this to say on November 25 during an interview on the national broadcasting system:
-and I don't think that there has really been as much obstruction lately as we had during the summer recess-or when we should have had a summer recess.
The Minister of Agriculture says that during the summer months there was obstruction,

yet the Prime Minister says the business of parliament was not sacrificed during the summer months.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with the obstruction of parliament, we are dealing with an amendment. If the hon. member is going to use the rules of this house to filibuster, he should filibuster by the rules.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am making these remarks in an endeavour to convince this house that we should have a plebiscite. The hon. member for Broadview, like many other members on that side, should make some contribution to this debate instead of remaining in his seat interrupting. If he signifies that he will do so I am prepared to resume my seat and listen to him. The hon. members can continue this program of interference but they will not bother me, because I know their minds are closed on this issue.
Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this house that I have one more reason for advocating a plebiscite. We now have one flag design before us, of a basically red colour. Such a design has no appeal whatever in many parts of the country. I have the privilege of returning to my constituency each week end, and since this design has been presented to the house I have observed a tremendous amount of displeasure on the part of my constituents.


Miss LaMarsh:: Then vote against it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I believe the people of Canada are beyond this now. Although they dislike it and find it is not desirable, I think they are beyond it. But the government does not seem to be interested in the lunch pail men of this country. I believe that the people who carry lunch pails in the province of Quebec are a little different from the people who carry lunch pails in the province of Ontario, but regardless of their province, their aims and objectives in life are very similar. This matter is of little significance to them. What is of significance to them is a brighter and better future for their families, and if they were called upon to make this decision it would be a very simple one for them to make. I believe the government would be very surprised to find that the red ensign would receive a tremendous amount of support from all these people.
To remove every vestige of our history from the design we are going to have to accept if we do not have a plebiscite to determine what the people desire is in my estimation a retrograde step. It is well known in the history of

the world that those who forget their past may well have greater difficulties in the future. I do not know whether all hon. members have had the time to read the column by Bruce West in this morning's Globe and Mail, but I believe they will find that it expresses the thinking of most people. Let us not deny, Mr. Speaker, let not one member of the house deny, that there will be a tremendous number of members on the government side of the house who will vote for this particular design knowing full well-


Miss Jewett:: That the committee recommended it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -that they are voting against the desires of their people. I will tell the hon. member for Northumberland-


Pauline Jewett: That the committee recommended it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -that the Liberals on the committee, in a final act of desperation, found themselves in the position of not being able to accept anything else.


Pauline Jewett: What about the 14 to 0 vote?


Eric Alfred Winkler: If you want to make a contribution, madam, rise in your place and make your own speech. Don't bother me.


Pauline Jewett: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I will accept questions when I am finished.


Pauline Jewett: I just want to ask about the 14 to 0 vote.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I would be glad to accept that question.


Pauline Jewett: Fine. I have already asked it. What about the 14 to 0 vote?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to comment on the 14 to 0 vote. It is a very simple thing.


Pauline Jewett: Good.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Don't use big words, because she can't understand them.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It was a Liberal trick within the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I do not care what the reaction to that remark is; I tell you that is what it was. If you are faced with a decision involving an apple which is perfect and another apple which is imperfect, which one are you going to choose?
Canadian Flag


An hon. Member:: The perfect one.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Absolutely; and if you make this decision preferring pears and there are no pears, then you have no alternative. That is the truth. You know it and every member of the committee knows it. Let us be truthful about this matter. Members on the other side of the house do not like this thing and do not want it, but they are forced to take it. I am not going to ridicule it because I might find myself standing up before it some day. I am that honourable, as I think every member on this side of the house is. Nevertheless, when we are faced with something that is second rate, for goodness sake let us give the people of the country, 64 per cent of whom have now stated they want a poll, the opportunity to vote in a plebiscite, or let the government say they will put something on this flag representing our past. This design is bland. It has no crown, not a single point of association with our past.


Mr. Munro:: You are ridiculing it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Maybe that will be all right for you, but there will be a few members from Toronto who will rue the day they supported this flag. Make no mistake about that. As I approach the end of my remarks I should like to refer to this article by Bruce West which I feel is an honest and sincere effort to set the situation straight, as it should be. I say, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. West in his article this morning reconciles the situation that exists between our two great provinces, and I think he does it very well. He indicates that the flag debate is becoming very wearisome to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: He goes on to say:
Believe me, I do not enter into this argument in this space merely to fill up some blank paper.
Do not believe either that the opposition is acting from any such motive.
The words which have already been written and spoken on this matter would, if compiled in book form, probably provide enough volumes to build a modem great wall of China along the entire length of the Quebec-Ontario border. However, in spite of my best intentions, 1 often find it difficult to just sit here saying nothing while the battle ebbs and flows. I consider it to be not only my right to comment on it but my obligation. For one thing, I believe that the wishes of a great and extremely important segment of our people on this matter are not only being ignored but disdainfully and even contemptuously ignored. This, I think, is a shameful thing, and if I can help express their side of the argument I intend to do so. One particular puzzling aspect of the long flag debate, both in parliament and on the streets, is

Canadian Flag
the fact that somehow we who favour the retention of our century old banner are now being singled out as the villians in the piece. We are accused of helping to sow disunity in this country by refusing to go along with the proposal for a new Canadian flag.
This is true. This is part of the trick to which I referred earlier, and one of the reasons I would be prepared to put the question to a plebiscite and stand on what the people had to say. Mr. West goes on to reconcile the whole matter. I have before me a speech that was delivered in Toronto in regard to the problem as some people try to portray it; but Mr. Robarts, the premier of Ontario, has approached it from the point of view of trying to unite the country. I am afraid those on the other side of the house do not have as full an appreciation of what they are doing to Canada. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the house, was there a problem before the Liberal party came into power in this country? Was there a problem between Quebec and the rest of Canada? No, there was no problem. Why should there be a problem now, Mr. Speaker?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Divide and rule.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is a very sad and sorry thing that this sort of thing takes place for political purposes, and I am afraid that is the case. That is all the more reason why a plebiscite should be held. As I said earlier, I am not too much imbued with the idea, but when the government comes along in this way and uses these tactics I can only say that this must be their motive.
I also have here the text of a speech delivered in Toronto at a similar sort of meeting by one Mr. Fernand Guindon, a French Canadian from eastern Ontario. He expresses his thoughts on the question very well. I believe more attention should be paid to the sensible attitudes that people put forward rather than trying to pick on the small things which cause trouble. I should like to read an excerpt from this speech. As I say, it was made by a French Canadian who lives in eastern Ontario. He said in part:
We French Canadians in Ontario have not only received fair treatment for our own particular problems. We have also shared with all Ontario citizens the benefits of progressive policies which have developed this province and made it prosperous.
The same doors are open to every citizen of Canada. Do you hear the province of Ontario squealing because of a recent announcement that it pays more taxes than any other part of this country? I think not. Should they

not, then, have the opportunity of saying what kind of flag they want? Would a plebiscite not achieve this purpose? Then let all the people across the country accept the result.


Maurice John Moreau: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes.


Maurice John Moreau: Is he suggesting now that we should have a weighted vote, depending on the amount of taxes we pay?


Eric Alfred Winkler: No, I did not say that. This is another typical Liberal trick that the hon. member is using. I will admit that the hon. member is in attendance quite often, but he has not said much lately. 1 believe the people of Scarborough would like to hear his views on this issue.


Maurice John Moreau: I should like to express my views by a vote.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We know how they will be expressed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You have not told us which apple you like.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If the minister would mind her own apples she would get along better around here.


Mr. Regan:: I was attempting to follow the hon. member closely, and with interest. I understand he made a complaint that the people of Ontario pay more taxes than any other area. I ask the hon. member if he would not agree that this is because of the fact that the rest of Canada has to bear the tariffs to protect Ontario's industries and provide a captive market for the products of Ontario?


Eric Alfred Winkler: The other night, Mr. Speaker, I believe I referred to the hon. member but one word was missed in Hansard, so I will repeat the reference today. I referred to him as the brash and junior member for Halifax. If he looked after the problems of his own constituency and voted properly on this question, he might have a chance of coming back. In addition, I do not like the way he takes my words out of context.
I meant to ask, do you find any of the arguments that arise in Canada today coming from the province of Ontario? You do not. No one hears that voice. I make this statement precisely for the benefit of the hon. member for York-Scarborough. You do not hear any of these arguments coming from

the province of Ontario. I do not criticize anyone else because it may be that if we were to raise these points we could get closer together. I believe, too, we should let the people on both sides, whether they are revolutionary or whether they are not, whether they are vocal or whether they are quiet, decide the issue by means of a plebiscite, and perhaps then we could achieve some unity in this country. Perhaps some day the Minister of National Health and Welfare will find I am hammering my desk for her, although I do not know.
I should like to say to the house that I believe there are three alternatives open to the government today. We have one before us right now in the form of an amendment providing for a plebiscite. The government, of course, could accept the amendment and we could go forward with a plebiscite. The second alternative is that the Prime Minister and the cabinet could decide to drop the whole issue and maintain the status quo until a more opportune time. The third alternative would be the application of closure. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what has been discussed with government members. We have the amendment, and I wonder which of these alternatives the Prime Minister has informed government supporters he is going to follow. Whichever one it is, I should like to remind him that we refuse to change our position.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Let us vote.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorklon):: Some weeks ago I spoke in this house and said I was opposed to a plebiscite. I gave my reasons. I said I did not want to see bitterness engendered; I did not want to see a wedge driven too deeply between the various groups in our country.
I have changed my position, and I want to put it on the record. I am going to vote for a plebiscite. Let me tell you why. As I look across the house I find there is not one member in this house who represents an area west of Toronto. Oh, I apologize; there is one. I have changed my position and I am going to give you the reasons for that change.


Mr. Groos:: Would the hon. member also change his position and admit that there is at least one other member from the west sitting in the house today?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Once again I apologize. I have been around here so long that when the new boys walk in I do not always recognize them.
Now, I am going to make my position clear. I am voting for the plebiscite. I am not
Canadian Flag
bilingual, Mr. Speaker, but I want to draw attention to one fact. I believe the French word for rabbit is "lapin". I suppose the plural would be "les lapins". Well, watch those on my far left vote; watch them bolt for the curtain.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this house has voted to continue the debate on this plesbiscite question, I am happy to take some part in the discussion because I am fully in favour of allowing the population of Canada to rule on this very emotional question of a flag for this country.
We have a distinctive Canadian national flag now. As I pointed out in speaking on the original motion on August 24 last, orders in council passed in 1924 and 1945 bear that out. It is referred to five times as a distinct or distinguished flag which certainly cannot be confused with that of any other nation. If there are some minds which cannot distinguish the Canadian red ensign from other flags, I see no reason why the entire nation must be brought down to the mental level of those who cannot tell the red ensign from any other flag. We do not have to descend to the lowest common denominator.
The Prime Minister, when speaking before the Royal Canadian Legion in Winnipeg on Sunday, May 17, in the second paragraph of his remarks stated that there was too little of the emotion of patriotism to be found in Canadians. I sincerely hope that I will not be carried away by my emotional approach to the flag. I hold it in the highest respect, in the highest regard, and I always will, despite what action may be taken by this parliament in a vote that may come before Christmas, although I sincerely hope not. The things for which the flag stands were created by the experiences of a great people. Everything for which it stands was written by their lives. The flag is ibe embodiment not of sentiment but of history. It represents the experiences made by men and women, the experiences of those who lived and those who died under the flag. It is not something to be laughed at. Last night I expressed my convictions and I expressed the opinions of the majority of the voters in the riding of York-Humber, as fine a constituency as there is in the city of Toronto. I hope you, Mr. Speaker, did not hear the laughter behind my back by people I did not wish to identify and therefore did not turn around.

Canadian Flag
The Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons on June 15 last, said "This is a serious, a solemn and historic occasion..." You can tell from the chatter behind the curtains how serious and important they consider the event. This is a serious, a solemn and historic occasion, as the Prime Minister said. Might I have order, Mr. Speaker? It is just a small request.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say I think you have very good order and rapt attention, certainly better than a great many others.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The Prime Minister said:
-this is a serious, a solemn and historic occasion and I venture to hope, as I also mentioned a moment ago, that the debate will be worthy of the occasion.
I would like to congratulate the Speaker on the ruling he made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have not got the authority with me, but many years ago Mr. Speaker Glen said it was not hardly proper to even smile at the Speaker let alone comment on anything he has done or said. Of course if you are dissatisfied with his decision you can always move a motion, but please leave the Speaker out of this debate.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I was well aware of the rule, but I am on Hansard as having expressed the wish to congratulate you. I have been cut off in my wish, but you can take it as read.
I would like to remind the members of this Canadian House of Commons that charity covers a multitude of sins, and flags can be used to cover a great deal of inaction and indecision. They are trotted out at times of stress and strain and thus serve as a divertissement from other questions that should be before the house.
I sat in opposition after being elected in June, 1962 until the house was dissolved in February; I suppose you can say from June to February but I prefer to say from September to February. I sat on the other side of the house in the fall of 1962, and at that time I was very interested in the remarks by the then leader of the opposition on December 19, 1962. I quote those remarks from Hansard:
It is a traditional and fundamental right of parliament to vote taxes before they are collected and to approve expenditures before they are made. When these rights are ignored, when they are violated, parliament itself is being violated and we are taking a step toward its destruction. No matter how wide a circulation we give and no matter in what form, to the bill of rights, and no matter how much we talk about Magna Carta and the bill of rights, no matter how emo-

tionally we may wrap ourselves up in parliamentary or national flags, both these rights I have mentioned are being deliberately and systematically violated by the present government.
I am wondering if this party has been committed, as we are told by some people, to bringing before parliament a distinctive national flag within two years from April 1963. I am wondering why we are wrapped up emotionally in national and parliamentary flags rather than in questions that should be occupying our attention at this time. I have looked over the speech from the throne in 1963 and the speech from the throne in 1964. The speech from the throne read on May 16, 1963 stated:
The greater Canada that Is in our power to make will be built not on uniformity but on continuing diversity . . .
"Unity in diversity" is quite a phrase. I do not use it. The words contradict each other. However, the speech from the throne in May, 1963 stated:
The greater Canada that is in our power to make will be built not on uniformity but on continuing diversity . . .
They tell us the present flag is causing offences in certain parts of the country and that therefore we need a new flag that will not cause the offence which some people claim it occasions them. I say if there is some objection to the union jack in the Canadian red ensign then let us follow the fine, high sounding words in the speech from the throne on May 16, 1963:
The greater Canada that is in our power to make will be built ... on continuing diversity . . .
In that speech from the throne we were promised that the parliament of 1963 would establish a Canadian development corporation. Where is it? We were told there would be a new department of agriculture act to be placed before us-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but I do hope he is approaching the question of the plebiscite and that this is all preliminary to moving in that direction. I hope these preliminary remarks will be relatively short because the question before the house is the amendment, and the amendment deals with the plebiscite.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I have said before and I repeat that I am 100 per cent behind holding the plebiscite, but I am wondering why we need to hold a plebiscite on a question that was never even mentioned in the speech from the throne. I am wondering why we should be spending our time dis-

cussing a matter that was never mentioned in the speech from the throne in 1963 or in the speech from the throne in 1964. There were many references to pieces of legislation to be passed by the parliament of 1963 and the parliament of 1964, but those pieces of legislation are shoved aside and suddenly we are presented with the proposition that the government has promised somewhere, somehow, sometime that it would produce a distinctive Canadian flag.
If you, Mr. Speaker, feel I should not mention the lengthy number of items referred to in the two speeches from the throne in 1963 and 1964, items that have not been implemented, then I will lay aside that portion of my remarks. But I am certain all hon. members of the house know very well the questions that have been pushed aside because of the government's action in bringing in the flag question at this time.
Dealing with a plebiscite, personally I would rather see the government withdraw the flag committee report completely and just let it die on the order paper, let it die at the time of the Christmas recess. But if it will not follow that sensible course of action, which was the course followed in 1945 and 1946- and I have had lengthy discussions on the matter with the chairman of the flag committee of 1945 and 1946, and with one of the members of that committee who is sitting in the house today, God bless him-I wish it would pay attention to the fine example set under the leadership of Mackenzie King, who used to be held in high respect by the Liberal party when living. But of course Mackenzie King dead is Mackenzie King dead, and today we have smarter men than that great man who held the office of prime minister longer than any other Canadian. He let the flag committee report go to the wall in 1946, and I suggest the same treatment be given to the flag committee report of 1964.
Among the items mentioned in the 1963 speech from the throne-and I apologize to the Speaker for referring back to it-was a promise that the committee on privileges and elections would review the Canada Elections Act. I asked if any action had been taken on that, but the government's answer is that that committee met in 1963 but the session ended before the committee could report. If the committee discussing the Canada Elections Act in 1963 was allowed to die at the time that the session ended in 1963, then I would point out that is a very good precedent. It ranks with the flag com-
Canadian Flag
mittee report of 1945 and 1946, and I think we should follow the same practice in 1964 and just let the committee report go to the wall when we adjourn for the Christmas recess.
The government's present intention of giving priority to the report of the flag committee is putting this parliament in a strait-jacket. Not only is it putting the opposition in a strait-jacket; it is putting the government into one as well. They would like to take some necessary action to bring the trustees of the S.I.U. before a parliamentary committee, but since we are allowed to discuss only this flag question we may not be able to take the action required to bring these trustees here. We have to stay with the report of this flag committee, we are told, until a decision has been reached. I sincerely suggest that the entire report be withdrawn and that we proceed to government business which requires the attention of the House of Commons and which should be on the order paper at the present time.
I have admired those speakers who are defending the red ensign, and I regret that it should be necessary to defend the red ensign in this dominion which has been built up under the wing of, and with the help of, the British empire. I have admired those people who have pointed out that our discussion of the flag question has brought changes in the position taken by the government with regard to the matter, and I sincerely hope the discussion we are now pursuing-and it will continue until the Christmas recess, I assure you, Mr. Speaker-will result in further action by the government which will be of benefit not only to Canada as a whole but to the government party as well.
There have been quite a few retreats. I regret to use that word but, being a Liberal, I hear it so often it just comes naturally to me. There have been quite a few improvements-I will use that word this time-in the government's actions in connection with this matter. Hon. members will recall that on May 19 it was to have been a government bill, absolutely a government bill. I could read from Hansard of May 19, 1964 if it is legitimate to refer to previous debates in the current session, and draw attention to an exchange between the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the Prime Minister.


Mr. Nowlan:: Let us not evade the question any longer. We are now told that the government is going to put a design before parliament. Does the government accept responsibility for It?

Canadian Flag


Mr. Pearson:: The government will indeed take responsibility for the design which is submitted to the House of Commons.
That design later turned out to be the three leaf design. On May 19 we did not know what it was. But the Prime Minister said the government would accept responsibility for the design. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam then asked a question and the Prime Minister replied:
The members have had an election pointed at their heads like a gun in respect of every decision that has been made in this house on policy matters since we took over the government. X have pointed out, and I think I should make it quite clear, that when the government submits to parliament a matter of policy-and this is certainly a matter of policy-the government must stand or fall on the result of the decision of the house.
Then the right hon. gentleman went on to say he did not intend to hold it against any member of the Liberal party who voted against the design. But this was certainly a matter of government policy. Where is that three leaf flag today, Mr. Speaker?
Then we retreated again-I am sorry; we withdrew. We withdrew to a free vote on August 21.


An hon. Member:: It was not a retreat?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I said we withdrew, and the statement then made by the leader of the government was:
There has been criticism that the government was attempting to influence a decision in its favour by the threat of an election if it were defeated on the issue. Therefore, Mr. Speaker,
X stated at yesterday's meeting and I am glad to repeat it to the house today that in our view votes on the resolutions and on amendments to them will be entirely free. That is, an election will not be at stake on such votes.
That is a most interesting statement, because I have another statement here by the Secretary of State. Speaking in Toronto on June 13 the Secretary of State told a press conference that the flag was "nevertheless a government proposal and that a defeat on the question could cause an election". I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where is the three leaf flag of June 13? I have quoted the Secretary of State himself.
We were told that this question would never go to a committee, that it was a matter to be decided by the full parliament of Canada in all its majesty and with all its capabilities. Well, we improved our position by withdrawing to previously prepared positions and putting the question into the hands of a committee. This was as a result of the discussions we had on the flag during the summer months. 
Out went the three leaf flag. We now have a one leaf flag. I maintain we should hold a plebiscite among the people of this country from Vancouver island to Newfoundland to find out what they want on a single transferable vote basis with a few suggestions put before them including the Canadian red ensign. I know what will command the majority vote in this country and that is why I say "Put the red ensign on the transferable ballot".
Speaking about our improvements and withdrawals, we were to have a new flag on July 1. It was going to look terrific. Well, the same flag is still flying that was flying when this country was built up, and it will continue to fly from that same flagstaff. Then we were to have a new flag so the Queen could come over here and lower the jack in the red ensign and run up the three dying leaves of the new flag in October. But October, too, has come and gone. Now we are told we will have a new flag by Christmas. Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a flag by Christmas; it will be the red ensign with the jack in the hoist.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Where are all the hecklers now?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I understand from a ruling made by the Chair last night while the hon. member for Moose-Jaw-Lake Centre was speaking that it is not in order to quote from a newspaper editorial written during a current debate. I cannot figure out in my mind whether an editorial which appeared in Le Devoir on August 22 was written during the current debate or not. At that time the debate was on the three leaf flag. We are now in the course of a debate on a plebiscite in connection with a one leaf flag, and if there is a ballot I should like to see the red ensign on the ballot. May I quote from an editorial written in August?


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest of interest and the greatest of sympathy for the hon. member, may I say that the question before the house is not a general discussion on the flag; it is whether or not we should have a plebiscite. The hon. gentleman, I know, was just warming up to deal with this question of the plebiscite. I do not know how long it takes. Perhaps he could confine the remainder of his speech to the question of a plebiscite. The subject of the flag and all the movement surrounding it is one which can be discussed on the main flag motion, but now

we are dealing with the amendment, which concerns a plebiscite.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I was hoping that some comments I was about to make would provide information to those who will be voting on this question of a plebiscite. As to relevancy, I thought we had wide latitude. I was here the other day and heard the way an admitted draft dodger referred to men who had lost a leg in the first world war, or an arm in the second world war as "resembling Canadians." That apparently was relevant; he was not called to order. Yesterday or the day before I heard a cabinet minister tell an hon. member of this house to sit down and shut up. So I know the latitude accorded to us in this debate is very wide.
On this question of the plebiscite I should like to point out that this editorial of August 22 last says we now have a government led by a man who, one day in May, claims he is discussing a national policy of the utmost importance; yet in the month of August he says it is a free vote and everybody can do as he likes. With a plebiscite it would be a free vote and 19 million Canadians would have an opportunity of telling us what they think.
I have already drawn the attention of the house to the fact that the party in the seats of government does not hold a majority of votes from the electors who put us here. I am the member for York-Humber, with 20,000 votes behind me; I had 24,000 votes cast against me. I hope and pray that I represent a majority of the people in York-Humber. I know I do on the red ensign question, but on other questions of the day I hope and pray that I represent always the majority opinion of the people of York-Humber and not solely the opinion of the minority who put me into parliament with 20,000 votes in a 44,000 vote election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I say we have not a clear mandate to put a flag before the nation on a single vote of parliament; this party does not have 50 per cent of the votes. Two by-elections were held quite recently. It is a sore subject in some quarters and perhaps I do not need to name where they were held, but I would point out that in regard to the vote in those two by-elections-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Churchill:: Go ahead.
Canadian Flag


Ralph Bronson Cowan: -the party in power did not receive a majority of the votes; yet we have a spokesman for the Liberal party going down into New Brunswick and announcing that 90 per cent of the people are in favour of the proposed flag. This statement was made within two weeks of the two by-elections in which the party in power did not obtain 50 per cent of the votes. Boy, if that isn't inflation I never did see it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: They obtained 47 per cent of the vote on November 9, yet it is said that 90 per cent of the people are in favour of the one leaf flag. The same spokesman who was in New Brunswick stating that 90 per cent of the people were in favour of this flag was in Victoria, B.C., in August. As reported by the Victoria Times we learn that the question of the flag is settled; everybody is in favour of the three leaf flag. The Victoria Times of August 14 says:
There is definitely no chance of a federal election this year and prospects are unlikely in 1965, transport minister J. W. Pickersgill said here today.
The federal cabinet minister pooh-poohed any question that the issue of Canada's new flag could precipitate a vote.
"The public has decided the flag question. It is settled", he said emphatically.
This is the Victoria Times. This is the three leaf flag that the member for Leeds loves so much. If the question was settled on August 14, why are we debating the matter in December of 1964, except to force a plebiscite of the people? Let us get the opinions of those people who are the backbone of and who are this country in the last analysis, and let us not have the decisions of people sitting in these seats and sitting here, in a great many cases, with a minority of the votes behind them.
I certainly believe that in a plebiscite, if three or four suggested pennants were before the public, the red ensign would carry an overwhelming majority of the vote; because with a transferable vote only a majority vote can win the day, which is not the case when you put eight or nine flags up for grabs and one gets, say, 31 per cent of the vote and you say therefore that everybody will go for it. If there were a transferable vote of the nation on this question of a pennant you would find that the red ensign would top any such plebiscite that was held.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that statements have been made that this is going to be a free vote. A free vote is one where the government does not fall if the vote goes

Canadian Flag
against it. I would like to comment on some facets of this. We are going to have a free vote on this question of the amendment and a plebiscite. The question of the amendment and the plebiscite will be decided by people who, as I mentioned when speaking on August 24, have sincere hopes of senator-ships, or diplomatic appointments, or who would like to be judges.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: It is a free vote, however, and those who would like to go to Kuala Lumpur, Scotland, Copenhagen or Russia, are also free to vote as they like, just as it was free for them to make these trips around the world. They do not make any reports to the government at all; they just come and go. They are here at times of stress and strain to vote, and they are away on other occasions. I think the government should have a board in the outer lobby setting out these members who so willingly sacrifice their time and are absent from home to go to Copenhagen, north Russia, south Siberia and the far end of China. The names of these members should be shown, because the country does not realize the sacrifices that many of these people make and are going to make on their behalf in connection with this free vote. They draw learned conclusion in their own minds and consciences, but there is no report made to parliament as a whole; there is no written statement as to what they picked up for the guidance of members of parliament. Just those who participate in travel at government expense know what they have learned; and frequently they are defeated in the following election, so the vast store of knowledge they have acquired is lost to the nation as a whole, more's the pity.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Along with their bumper stickers.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize this to point out that there cannot be a free vote in this Canadian House of Commons. I was not in the house when it was suggested that the sessional indemnity should be increased to $18,000 a year. I left for Toronto on a Friday afternoon train and was not in the house on the Monday when it was voted on. I was in the Gravenhurst-Orillia district talking on a matter that was of interest to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department of Transport in connection with a suggested canal from lake Muskoka to join the Severn river.

I was there when this increase was voted, but I will state that if I had been in the house I would have voted for it, because I think the $18,000 a year indemnity is necessary to the great majority of members of the House of Commons. But I would like to present some figures regarding salaries of $18,000 or more a year.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: They don't want to hear it.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will not mind my interrupting. I think the record should be kept straight. Parliamentary committees, associations, or members going on those various trips to C.P.A., I.P.U., NATO and Canada-United States meetings are the subject of subsequent reports to parliament in each case. I think the hon. member will find that in each case those reports are recorded in Hansard. Certainly I know of at least three such reports, and I know of two reports which will come to the house in due course. I am sure the hon. member did not wish to imply that hon. members who are representing their country in foreign countries are not carrying out their duties in the proper manner, because I wish to assure the hon. member that they are. I have seen the reports, and those reports are then filed with the house. I am sure the hon. member meant something else.
With regard to the $18,000 indemnity, I do not see how this has a bearing on the question before the house, which is the matter of a plebiscite on the flag question. Would the hon. member try to confine his remarks to the question of a plebiscite, whether it should be held, where it should be held, how it should be held.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have your statement that you know three or four such reports have been received. I know of 30 trips that have been taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: With regard to the matter at issue, I simply point out that we are all the product of our experiences. We are all the product of our education, and our decisions are guided by our past experiences, by our present status in life and by our hopes for the future. We do have hopes for the future for ourselves, for our families, for our loved ones and for the country as a whole. The fact that

some of us have a French background dictates a manner of thinking and voting. Those who like myself have an Anglo-Saxon background have a different approach to the questions of the day.
A study of history is of great value to us. I cannot help but repeat my request that this committee report be allowed to drop. We have all heard of the great victory of the king of Epirus over the Romans in Italy. King Pyrrhus then said, "One more victory such as this and the war is lost." When thinking of that great victory of the Greeks over the Romans do not forget that he is the one man in history regarded as having been able to prevent the growth of the Roman empire, had he wished to do so. For some reason, probably because Greek cities did not give him the military support necessary, he turned back from his approach to Rome and ravaged southern Italy and Sicily. He is known particularly for his epigram, "One more victory such as this and the war is lost".
King Pyrrhus had a greater claim to fame than his military victories in southern Italy and Sicily, which were indeed tremendous. Another epigram has been and will be associated throughout history with King Pyrrhus. After ravaging Sicily for three years, he is the man who has been described as introducing the phalanx to Italy. His outriders were mounted on elephants brought in from Egypt. After leaving Sicily he decided to go back to Greece and-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Those voices come from the serious, honest and high minded members who have handled this whole question in the way it has been handled. That is the group that continually shouts "Shut up and sit down".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I was pointing out that as King Pyrrhus left Italy for Greece he said to the hosts assembled around him, "What a battlefield I leave here for Carthage and Rome".
I suggest that the flag issue should be dropped. Our hopes will govern the votes of many of us, and at $18,000 per year or $1,500 per month, with 40 months from now until the end of the life of this parliament, this is a $60,000 question. I ask you to vote in favour of the plebiscite, and vote for it wholeheartedly, so as to let the country decide this question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Canadian Flag


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know whether an hon. member has the right to impute motives to others for the way they vote?
[Text}


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my speech on the flag question I should like to compliment the hon. member for York-Humber for his splendid address.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: May I also suggest that if every member of the Liberal party was honest and studied that speech I am convinced they could not find anything wrong with it, and I challenge all those Liberal members to stand in their places and voice their opinions on this subject. There is not one among you who has made a speech, so we can rightfully accept the attitude expressed by the member for York-Humber as the official attitude of the Liberal party, and it should be presented as such. We all know that as trained seals you have not the fortitude to depart from the position which has been taught you and speak your minds with intellectual honesty, as has been done by the hon. member for York-Humber.
The hon. member for York-Humber has stated categorically that the committee report should be dropped and that we should go ahead with the other important business of the house. How many times has that suggestion been made in this chamber during the past several days? Almost every member who has spoken during this debate has made that suggestion, but it has fallen on the deaf ears of the members on the Liberal benches.
As that hon. member suggested, there is no clear mandate for adopting the flag which has been recommended by the committee as the national flag. Let us consider the red flag which has been recommended by the committee. It represents a complete change from the three maple leaf design originally presented to the house.
The right flag for this nation, if a change is to be made from the red ensign, has not yet been discovered or presented to the Canadian people. One cannot discover the right flag by appointing a committee, setting time limits and holding guns to their heads. That cannot be done. If the Liberal members would just stop and think about what they are doing they would realize that in order to produce the kind of flag of which we can all be proud it

Canadian Flag
must be discovered, just as discoveries are made in the physical sciences.
Let us consider, for example, the discovery of Salk vaccine for the control of poliomyelitis, or the discovery and production of insulin by Banting and Best. Another example might be the discovery and development of the Bell telephone. Those were all discoveries.
Discoveries are also made in the social sciences. Consider for example the lady who sat in Boston with needle and thread and sewed together the flag of the United States. She carried out her work from the heart. She made a discovery with which everyone agreed, and it became the official flag of that great nation the United States of America.
I do not believe, by the very nature of the job they were assigned to do, a committee can go to work in camera, supposedly, and produce a flag satisfactory and suitable to this nation. That cannot be done. Instead of appointing a flag committee, as we did, it would have been much better to assign the task to the Canada council. I think we have a group of people there who could have taken much more time to consider this matter and given it much greater consideration. I am certain they could not have done a worse job than the committee did.
Mind you, it is not the fault of the members of the committee. They are all good men and I think they worked hard, but the task assigned to them was an impossible one. What we have got now was fully predicted by certain members of the press and by certain members of the house who said before the committee was appointed that it would not produce anything that would be acceptable to the people. Anyone who knows how matters of this kind are dealt with knows that the committee was charged with an impossible task.
I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare in her seat. Having charge of health matters, she would know that discoveries in the field of health must be worked on not just tomorrow or the next day but often for years before a remedy is ready to be made available to the public. When something is discovered it is often by accident. Someone imbued with the spirit of research goes ahead and works out the problem. The same thing has to be done in the field of social science with regard to the production of a flag. What I am trying to say is that the committee was placed in an impossible position.
One thing about which I am somewhat fearful in regard to a plebiscite is that we still have not a basic flag on which the people

could vote. One flag that was suggested was a modification of the red ensign. I am certain that no one on this side of the house has objected to a compromise. No one has said that the red ensign must be accepted lock, stock and barrel. In fact it has been said that the two founding races should be represented on the flag, and that there are many compromises and changes that should be made. But to deviate 100 per cent from the red ensign and throw it out completely will not satisfy the people of Canada. Now, Mr. Caouette-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he has to refer to hon. members by the constituency they represent and not by name.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Well, it was in the newspapers. I have reference to the front page of the Toronto Daily Star for December 3, 1964. In an address in Toronto the hon. member for Villeneuve made the following statement:
"English Canadians" are not to blame. Reaching agreement in parliament on the choice of a flag will not achieve national unity.
In other words if the recommendation of the committee for a single maple leaf design is accepted this will not bring about national unity, according to the hon. member for Villeneuve who has spoken so vociferously in favour of blindly supporting this particular design as the national flag of Canada.
In reviewing the matter I sometimes think the Liberal party has chosen this time to bring forward a discussion on the flag in order to make it serve as a red herring and draw attention away from other problems facing the government. There is no doubt there are important matters that should be discussed, and it would be far better to get on with the discussion of them.
When the Liberal party brought forward their estimates, the house leaders got together and there was no trouble in getting the estimates through. When any other legislation has been brought forward which has been in the best interests of the people of Canada we on this side have always co-operated. But as the official opposition we have a right to point out those things that we feel are not in the best interests of Canada.
I say "in the best interests of Canada" because in my opinion the Liberal members are no more in favour of the recommendation of the flag committee than are the Conservative members of the house. But the fact is that we in the official opposition are being blamed throughout the country for talking on



4, 1S64

[Stage Direction]
the flag in order to hold up other business. The effort is being made to have the people of the country believe that we are to blame because we wish to debate the flag issue. It might be that the best thing to do would be to dump the whole matter into the lap of the Liberal government and let them fight about it. The Liberal members are already divided on the question. They are already voting like seals-
An hon. Member:: Flattery will get you nowhere.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: -but when they go back to their constituencies they will see what their people have to say about the matter.
There are one or two other matters that have come to my attention. I come from Alberta where maple trees do not grow so there is nothing in the maple leaf design that thrills me one bit. I would vote against it on the ground that it contains the maple leaf. I want something on the flag that depicts my province. I do not believe the people of eastern Canada should force this particular design down the throats of other people in Canada, particularly in those parts of the country where maple trees do not grow.
There is no urgency about the flag. We have had the union jack for 100 years. I should like to tell you a story about what a French waiter in the dining car said to me the last time I came east.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder
whether the story the hon. member is about to relate refers to a plebiscite.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: It is 100 per cent related to the plebiscite that we are proposing in the amendment. He knew I was a member of parliament and he asked me what I thought of the flag. He said that he thought the people should have a vote on the flag. He went on to say that we have had the union jack for 100 years and that he was not too much interested in whether we had another flag or whether we had the union jack. He said "What difference is it going to make to me? What I want is security." In other words, what he wanted was a pension. He was thinking about a pension and those other things which would give him security, and he went on to talk about them.
So if you go out and talk to the man on the street you will find he is not worked up about this flag issue. There is no urgency, therefore, and the taking of a plebiscite to decide a flag might just as well be deferred
Canadian Flag
for the time being. Let us get on with other matters that are more important and are needed to a greater extent by the people of this dominion.
As the hon. member for York-Humber has said, we have a flag. I look out my apartment window at about five minutes to eight in the morning and see the red ensign being unfurled above the peace tower. It is a great thrill to see that flag go up and unfurl; the wind catches it and then it floats in the breeze. It is now floating above the peace tower, and it is there every day. Let us keep it flying. The people of my riding are saying, what is wrong with the flag we now have? Give us a chance to vote on it and get on with the business of the country, but do not let that fellow Pearson take away our red ensign. This is the mandate I have; it is what my people are saying.
The other day I attended a meeting put on by the Legion at Barons, in Alberta; about 400 or 500 people were there. They talked in a jocular way about everything in connection with the flag issue and the question of a plebiscite. They were all in favour of a plebiscite. I have come to the conclusion, for my own part, that the only method by which unity in Canada can be maintained is to have this flag question decided by a plebiscite. The people you approach in your constituency know just about as much about the flag of a nation and have as much ability to decide what position to take with regard to a flag as any member of parliament. In other words there are some issues that come before the House of Commons that lend themselves to a decision by the voters. They should be given an opportunity to vote on this issue before we adopt an official flag for Canada.
A vote in this house based on a political report and a political flag will never preserve the unity of this nation. I feel just as the hon. member for York-Humber felt, that unless there is a plebiscite this assembly is not in the position to take a vote on this particular flag and thrust it down the throats of the people.
I have letters referring to such matters as the fact that this is a red flag. I do not say this is something that was taken into consideration by the committee, but people say that red is the Liberal colour. Blue is the Conservative colour. I know that every party has a particular colour. Here are the Liberals coming in with a 100 per cent red flag. According to the letters I receive, people from one end of the country to the other are drawing attention to this.

Canadian Flag


Mr. Malheson:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question at this point?


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: Yes.


John Ross Matheson: 1 ask the hon. member, in fairness, if he is aware of the fact that it was a Conservative government that recommended to King George V that our national colours be argent and gules, that is white and red?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not right.


John Ross Matheson: Is he aware of that fact, that the national colours are white and red?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not right.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: I will say this, that if I were appointing a committee to decide on a flag I would never put anybody on it who knew anything about heraldry. I would pick some sensible, ordinary citizens who knew what the problem was and let them go to work to decide on a flag. Do you mean to say that the lady who, with her needle and thread, sewed together the flag of the United States at Boston knew anything about heraldry? She knew nothing. It is these people who think they know something about heraldry and know nothing who sit on these committees and produce the type of thing we have here.


John Ross Matheson: Does the hon. member know that Betsy Ross did receive technical advice from experts in heraldry before she sewed this flag?


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: You are absolutely wrong when you say she had technical people advising her at the beginning. Be that as it may, we are not talking about technical people. I see that the time is now one o'clock.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has called the attention of the Chair to the fact that it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Ralph Bronson Cowan: 
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: I agree with you very much.
In concluding my remarks I wish to say the government has no mandate to decide the flag issue and therefore that issue should be placed before the people in a plebiscite.
The government made mention of the flag in the dying days of the last election, saying that if returned to office it would try to provide a new flag, but that was not something which made it mandatory on the government to act. What was meant by that was that if it received a majority, and continued in office for four or five years, the subject of a flag could be introduced and it would do what it could do to arrive at something which would bring greater unity to Canadians and preserve the degree of unity we have now. However, as a result of the people's vote in that election we must deduct that the government is not in a position that it has a mandate to change the red ensign.


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


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: Furthermore, they are being kept in office by a group that wishes to retain their $18,000 a year.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: They are-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The suggestion which he is making now is entirely out of order and I would ask him to confine his remarks to the matter which is supposed to be discussed and considered, the necessity and advisability of holding a plebiscite.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: 
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to support the amendment I should like to start by reading part of it:
However, as the final vote of the committee did not reveal a sufficient degree of unanimity for the proposed design for a national flag for Canada, your committee therefore recommends that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to conduct a plebiscite to be held at the next general election-
Mention has been made of the fact that there was a vote in the flag committee of 10 to 4 in favour of the one maple leaf design, and the question was asked, "What is the significance of four votes against the proposal"?


Mr. Winch:: Against ten votes.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, against ten; but I would like to point out that each vote in that committee represented about 1,250,000 Canadians, which means that about 5,500,000 Canadians do not favour the design recommended by the majority of the committee.


Harold Edward Winch: How about the 14 million who do support it?


John Angus MacLean: This is the point I am getting at, that in the interests of national unity some process must be found whereby we can arrive at a flag of which all Canadians can be proud. It has been said that the one maple leaf design is one that does not stir the imagination, and that there are millions of Canadians who do not feel strongly one way or the other. In my judgment a flag that does not raise some emotion, some feeling of patriotism and some enthusiasm in the hearts of Canadians is not worth having. A flag of that sort would be of little use to any country.
Flags are intended to represent the things, the principles and the traditions we hold dear. If the committee had come up with a unanimous or a virtually unanimous recommendation I would have supported it, but a unanimous recommendation is not possible unless recognition is given to the various large groups and traditional factors which make up Canada's total population. But it failed to do this and as a result failed to produce a design which was unanimously acceptable to the committee.
A little over a week ago I happened to turn on the television and I saw the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) being interviewed. He was at his benign, gracious best, the soul of reasonableness, and he was explaining to the Canadian people how this government was one which governed by con-
Canadian Flag
sent, as all governments govern by consent. He was the soul of reasonableness. In practice, however, we are finding that this government is one which is trying to govern by coercion and pressures of various kinds. First we were to have a free vote on the flag question. Then it was said the result of the vote would determine the life of the government, and government supporters were pressured into line. This is why it is important that the Canadian people should be allowed to decide this issue. The Minister of Transport makes a reasonable statement that Canadians should be governed by consent. I agree with that. But if the minister does indeed hold these views they are not evidenced in practice today. I have the highest respect for the Minister of Transport and I do not believe he is a callous hypocrite who would intentionally try to mislead the Canadian people by telling them something he does not practise or believe in. All I can conclude, therefore, is that his influence in this cabinet is virtually nil, because if it intended to carry out his proposition the government would welcome the opportunity to ascertain the wishes of the Canadian people with respect to a flag.
I hesitate to digress, because it is not my intention to be out of order, but as time goes by and especially since he took up his present portfolio, the Minister of Transport- and I do not intend to be offensive to him in any way-reminds me more and more of some phrases in a musical which was popular about a hundred years ago.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Order.


John Angus MacLean: I will desist. The hon. member across the way does not want to hear it so I will leave it for some other time.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Sing a carol.


John Angus MacLean: Well, if I were to mention this musical the Minister of Transport would be honoured because it is about a very famous person. The lines go something like this:
He has made with the aid
At least of a geist
Two books in the native vernacular,
And the trips of his ships
In a host on the coast
Is something really spectacular.
But that is only in passing. I want to get back to my theme. I have a lot that I wish to say. We believe that the government should listen to reason. It is not too late. We believe the government should recognize the desires of the Canadian people and not continue to

Canadian Flag
pursue a program which cannot be anything but divisive. After all, at the present time it has become clear that the purpose of the government is not to construct and evolve a flag which would have a unifying effect. It has become clear from the work of the committee that from the government's point of view one thing is absolutely necessary, namely to banish the union jack and any other symbols of one of the great races of Canada from our present flag. The purpose of the government at the present time is not to create, but to tear down and banish forever those symbols which millions of Canadians hold dear. The government has never committed itself publicly to doing this. In the election compaign the Liberal party never took the people into its confidence in this regard and therefore by no stretch of the imagination have they a mandate to do this.
It is therefore essential that the Canadian people should have an opportunity to vote on a plebiscite at the next election to express their views on this subject. None of us know with any certainty what the majority of Canadians or what large groups of Canadians think on this subject. There are of course opinion polls, but only a fair amount of accuracy attaches to them. One thing is clear: Canadians are divided on this issue and the longer we pursue it and are forced to pursue it the greater the division will be. To impose such a decision upon Canadians without giving them adequate opportunity to express their views would be the most divisive action of all. If the government really believes that the introduction of a new flag would have a unifying effect and that Canadians would accept it, hon. gentlemen opposite should welcome the opportunity to allow our citizens to express their views in a plebiscite.
Some contend it is only those who are old enough to have served in one of the great wars who have any interest in the symbols of those things for which this nation stands. It is said that people of younger ages are all in favour of doing away with them. I find no evidence to support this view, although I quickly admit there is very little evidence to the contrary, either. But I did read recently that a boys' magazine took a poll among 2,000 of its readers between the ages of 8 and 18 and that the returns were split almost evenly between those who wanted the union jack and those who favoured a flag without any trace of the union jack. This indicates that even the young people of the country are divided on the issue. As I have said, for some reason which it is difficult for me and for the

average Canadian to understand the government is bent on eliminating these symbols from our flag. It wishes to get to the point of no return as quickly as possible so that nothing can be done about it.
We counsel mature consideration. We say this is a matter which could be desperately divisive as far as Canada is concerned, should a flag be imposed on the Canadian people which a large group is loath to accept and which another large group would detest. This is not the way to go about obtaining Canadian unity. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the question that naturally arises in our mind is, what is the motivation of the government? What pressure are they under? Why do they persist in this course? One explanation, of course, would be-and I am not suggesting it is the correct one-that somebody, perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), has a sort of mania about this and his mind is blocked to anything else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Angus MacLean: I think I am dead wrong on that; I am not suggesting that is so -but that eliminates a possibility. It may be based on a distorted reasoning, namely that by eliminating the symbols that the various groups of Canadians hold dear you will arrive at a kind of neutral situation where these divisive elements will disappear. In my judgment that is entirely wrong. There was a similar situation in the island of Cyprus when they tried to get a flag for that small country. The Greek majority thought that it should be one thing; the Turkish minority wanted their colours and their symbols in the flag. They could not arrive at any agreement and they would not agree to accept both suggestions. Each side wanted the right to veto what the other believed in. So they arrived at a nondescript thing which I believe is a map of Cyprus, and so on-I think there is an olive leaf in it somewhere-that is something comparable to the recommendation of the flag committee of this House of Commons. It cannot be said by any stretch of the imagination that this has brought national unity to the island of Cyprus.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the members to the extreme left are not interested in the debate, I would like the opportunity to hear what the speaker is saying, and hear it clearly. I wonder whether Your Honour would ask them to desist from the half dozen loud conversations that are going on at that end of the chamber.


John Angus MacLean: The question is, where is this pressure coming from? I would be very surprised if it is coming from the province of Newfoundland, for example. I see no great body of public opinion there that is intent on banishing the union jack, for example, or the red ensign. I am sure this pressure does not come from Nova Scotia, from Prince Edward Island or from British Columbia; nor does it come from Alberta or Saskatchewan. There is not one member in this House of Commons-if we are the ones to decide-from the province of Saskatchewan that favours doing away with the union jack as one of our historic symbols. The pressure does not come from Manitoba, and I am sure it does not come in any great measure from the province of Ontario. I am logically forced to conclude-


An hon. Member:: That it comes from Quebec.


John Angus MacLean: -that it certainly does not come from the province of Quebec. I will explain why.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That disappoints you over there.


An hon. Member:: All that are left now are the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


John Angus MacLean: I say that, Mr. Speaker, because the only argument I have heard the government or any spokesman for it advance as to why these symbols should be eradicated from our national flag is that they are archaic vestiges of a long dead, long past, colonialism. If that is the reason, it does not jibe with the reasoning of the province of Quebec-at least the province as a province-because as I recall it, their provincial flag, which I presume has the affection of all citizens of that province, consists of a white cross and four fleur-de-lis on a blue background, the symbols of old France. I think that is a very attractive flag and I respect the viewpoint and the good taste of the people of the province of Quebec who hold this flag in high esteem. I know that even if they did not do this, and felt that these symbols were an anachronism, they would surely not expect Canadians generally to eliminate from the national flag the symbols they love, before they had put their own house in order and eliminated from their own flag these equally archaic symbols of dead colonialism. I know Quebec people; many of them are among my closest friends, and I know they would not advance such a preposterous suggestion as that.
Canadian Flag
Where does this leave us? There is still some group that is pressuring the government to eliminate these symbols from our flag. I do not know who they are; but the government is obviously committed to this program and are embarrassed by the fact that they were not able to do it quickly. I suppose they took a straw vote of the membership of the house and found there were more people, collectively, in the other parties that would vote for them than there were in their own party that would vote against such a proposition, and they snatched at it to cause embarrassment and division in all parties in this house. Here was an opportunity to shove something through parliament quickly, and they were pressured in this way. As a result of that course of action, they have been saying ever since, with various degrees of politeness, "Stop talking. Bring this matter to a vote".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: They say, "Sit down and vote". The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) puts it in slightly different terminology. I believe she said to an hon. member, "Shut up, sit down and vote". But anyway, Mr. Speaker, this is what they advance. There is a reason why this course is not acceptable at the present time, and I will come to this point in a moment. In making this point they have practised the ruse that is as old as time itself. I am rather amused by the fact that one or two gentlemen of the fourth estate, the press gallery-and these men look upon themselves as people who are objective, incisive, shrewd and worldly-wise; and they are, with perhaps one or two exceptions-have fallen for the ruse the government has used, which was old when Ali Baba and the 40 thieves were around. One or two of the gentlemen of the press have been taken in by this ruse. It is an old trick of pickpockets, from time immemorial, that when their victims begin to get suspicious, they point at some innocent bystander down the way and scream "Thief", and everybody goes after him and the pickpocket disappears up the alley. This is what the government has been doing all summer; they have been saying, "The terrible opposition are preventing parliament from getting on with the country's business". I want to point out that it is not the opposition that is holding up government business. The opposition has no choice as to the program of business which is laid before parliament. This is the 27th day the government has taken

Canadian Flag
the view that the elimination of the symbols which millions of Canadians hold dear is the most important problem facing the government of Canada. I know of no other government in the world that is so confused it believes its most urgent task is the abolition of its national flag.
The government can stop this waste of parliament's time immediately, if it is a waste. They can stop it in various ways. The most obvious way of stopping it would be to accept this amendment and take this divisive subject out of parliament, allowing the Canadian people to make a decision. They could stop this waste of parliament's time, if that is what it is, almost as easily by calling other government business on the next sitting day. The government could have done that 25 days ago. What has happened to the labour code? Why has the government not brought that on? What has happened to the C.N.R. financing legislation and the Canadian pension plan?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Queens will agree with the Chair, that he is straying from the motion that is before the house at the present time.


John Angus MacLean: I am pointing out that by agreeing with this amendment to refer this question to a plebiscite the government will immediately clear the decks of parliament for other business. I am also saying that that is not the only way this could be done. The third way it could be done, if there is no other government business ready at this time, is to accept this amendment and adjourn parliament for the Christmas recess.


Yvon Dupuis: Let us vote and see what happens.


John Angus MacLean: If the minister will get up and state on behalf of the government that they accept this amendment, then I will-


Yvon Dupuis: This is to be a free vote. I cannot say that for them.


Mr. Herridge:: We heard all about the free vote just before lunch.


John Angus MacLean: The most important point I want to make with regard to all of this, and this is the point that seems to have missed the grasp of the government entirely, is that this is no ordinary piece of legislation. If it were a financial bill, or any kind of legislation which could be corrected, repealed or

amended by another parliament, I would gladly have someone state the position on behalf of myself and others and let the issue come to a vote. I would be glad to let the government stew in its own juice as a result of its errors.
However, this is a more serious situation than that. There is an old tradition that no parliament can bind a future parliament. However, if we do what the government proposes we will in effect be binding future parliaments, because the flag is something that should be permanent. If this report was concerned only with a flag to fly over Canada during the life of this government I would let it go through immediately, but I have my country's future in mind and at heart, and I think it is shameful if parliament allows this nefarious piece of legislation to be carried out, perpetrating on Canada a permanent flag that millions of Canadians will not accept. A flag is something that cannot practically be changed. Although there may not be anything in the constitution which would prevent a future parliament from changing the flag again, surely we do not want the flag changed every parliament. This government acts as though it were going to be in power forever. There is no telling what the next parliament will be like. It may be entirely different from this one.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: I hear an hon. member from one of the splinter parties, and I agree with the view that he has expressed. I am not suggesting the party to which I belong will necessarily form the next government, because I think the next parliament will probably be more fragmented than this one. One of the reasons for this belief is that the present government has condemned the official opposition with a vitriolic flood of abusive propaganda, but have also condemned themselves by their own acts.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: I am not surprised that one of the hon. members of the N.D.P. applauds.
I should like to illustrate what I am going to say with a very homely illustration, Mr. Speaker. My contention is that if the government wanted to get on with the other business of the nation now, all it has to do is agree with this amendment. They refuse to do so. They refuse to bring on other government business. They refuse to do what Mackenzie King did in 1946 or 1947-let the

report die on the order paper and prorogue the house.


Auguste Choquette: This is 1964.


John Angus MacLean: I know this is 1964.


Auguste Choquette: Come back to the present.


John Angus MacLean: Whatever we
allow to happen now on this issue will be permanent. We have an obligation to do a good job, and to do something that will be constructive and bring Canadians together. Therefore I feel that a plebiscite is one of the ways by which this can be done. If we find out what the Canadian people want in the way of symbolisms on their national flag we could then perhaps adopt a flag which would be acceptable. Perhaps the best way of doing this would not be by allowing them to make a choice from a number of completed flag designs, but by giving them a choice of symbols they would like included on the flag. I am sure that if that choice were given to the people the maple leaf would be one of the symbols chosen. I am also sure that the union jack would be one of the symbols chosen. I am not sure that the Canadian coat of arms, the fleur-de-lis or some other things, would be among the choices.
If the Canadian people were asked to choose three or four symbols from among a number, parliament would then know their feelings and a panel of experts could then design a flag incorporating the chosen symbols, and parliament could then adopt it.
Mr. Speaker, as one hon. member has already said, this is not something in respect of which there should be winners or losers, regardless of who they may be. This is a circumstance in which all Canadians should act in unity in order to have something of which each and every one can be justly proud, perhaps not for the same reason, but something that means something to each one.
I think it is divisive to try to insist that certain symbols, which millions of Canadians hold dear and cherish, should be eliminated from their flag. You cannot achieve unity by any one group pretending that if they do not recognize the other group it will disappear and go away, as it were. It is a fact that we are made up of two founding races and an intermixture of many other races. This is a fact. It would be folly for me as a Canadian of Scottish extraction over several generations to make myself believe or to do anything that would lead me to believe that all Canadians were of the same background
Canadian Flag
as I am. Therefore I am willing to allow Canadians of every origin to be represented in the flag; but I want the same privilege for myself.
This is a time for the government to reassess the situation. I would implore them to consider supporting the amendment.


An hon. Member:: Let us vote and you will see.


John Angus MacLean: I would suggest there are other ways in which this very contentious matter could be removed from parliament. I started to say a while ago that I wanted to illustrate the situation by a very homely analogy. When I was a teen-ager and a young man back on the farm, we always threshed in the fall of the year in a fairly wet climate and when some member of the threshing crew wanted to have a rest and did not want to carry on with productive activity he just made sure that a couple of really soggy sheaves went into the machine, whereupon the machine was fouled up and had to be shut off to be cleaned out. This is what the government is doing and has been doing all summer. Every day, day after day, it throws into the mill of parliament this very contentious question of the flag and how it should be designed. The result is that it will not go through the mill itself and it prevents other important business from being done.
I think my time has just about expired, Mr. Speaker, but there is a crucial point I want to reiterate. A government, especially a minority government, has no right to impose legislation which, in a practical sense in any case, cannot be repealed by a future parliament. Therefore unless this action can be taken with the unanimous consent of every party and every faction in the house, and unless it has almost 100 per cent support from all language groups and all racial backgrounds from every part of Canada, it should not be in a partisan manner in this way. It should not be done because the implication is that when the government goes out of office, as it will, the succeeding government would normally be bound to change the flag, and this no Canadian would want. The flag should be at least as permanent as the constitution, and at least as difficult to amend as the constitution, and in most countries amendments of the constitution requires a two thirds majority vote, or something of that sort, over and above the normal requirement for legislation.

Canadian Flag
If this flag is going to be imposed upon us there are large segments of the country that will not accept it with grace. There are millions of people who will resent it and to whom it will be an affront. Therefore if it is going to be imposed on them in this way, the least the government can do, this government which has discovered this theory of which it is so proud, the principle of opting out-and this may seem a bit ridiculous but the opting out principle can apply-is to allow the provinces that do not want this flag to opt out and not have it fly over those provinces.
I believe my time is up and I will continue my remarks on the main motion.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I wish to refer to page 10701 of Hansard for November 30 last where the following remarks of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) are recorded.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I quote:
With respect to the visit of the grade 10 children from the Peterborough school, it is true that at the request of certain members of the house, and I include among those the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Honey), the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Stenson), and the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb)-
These remarks resulted from the chastising or taking to task of the hon. member for Leeds by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) because of the action and conduct of the hon. member for Leeds when he was a member of the flag committee. I say to the house that this quotation is untrue. It is a downright lie.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Oh, sit down.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I say to you that I had no knowledge-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have done my best to follow the hon. member's argument but I cannot see the relation to the question of a plebiscite.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Furthermore, the use of the word "lie" is far too strong and I am sure the hon. member realizes that. Shall we say "misunderstanding" or some other equivalent word?


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I was trying to put the matter in its true context but I will gladly withdraw

the word "lie". I did not know of this visit to the flag committee room until I was invited on the day that the group was here by Mr. Howard, the students' teacher. The hon. member for Peterborough has also denied this charge.
Since for many reasons the number of those members who are in a position to put forward their independent views is very limited and since I speak for people outside the House of Commons I have again taken advantage of my right to have my say in the hope that by raising certain points and problems the government will reconsider their announced course on the flag question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Read on.


Gilles Grégoire: We want a vote.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says "read on". I want to assure him that we in this party have no paid script writers. My speech was written by me last night and the night before after the house closed. I say to these hon. members that if they were less interested in their beauty sleep and more interested in putting forward the views of their constituents on the floor of the house, we would have a better parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Listen to the parrots over there.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I have lots of time.


Gilles Grégoire: Filibuster.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: It is far from my purpose to indulge in destructive criticism alone. It is sufficient to say that the course of action upon which the government has decided would be disastrous to the unity of Canada. It is certainly better to consider now whether we are right or wrong, especially when we can do something about it. Such action as is contemplated by the government would be very serious for this Canada of ours.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. We should note something unusual which is happening in this house. This is the third speech being pronounced by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) on the flag issue.
In hockey when a player scores three goals, we say that he did the hat trick. I will be glad to send him a hat on the occasion, because three speeches in the house can well be compared to three goals in hockey. My

congratulations to the hon. member for this brilliant feat.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I want to thank the hon. member for those congratulations and I shall look forward to hearing his speech on the flag.


Gilles Grégoire: I will vote on it.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Such action as is contemplated by the government would be very serious to this Canada of ours, to its history and geography, its economic and trading position, its status as a world power, its people, culture and way of life as well as its traditions. Up to the time this government came into power the Anglo-French heritage was one of the most important distinguishing features of our country. The two cultures existing side by side-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: -each maintaining-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I am sure the hon. member realizes that the two cultures are very interesting, especially to me. Nevertheless, "plebiscite" can be translated into either English or French, and the same principle applies either in English or in French. Let us speak about the plebiscite.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I am not quite clear on your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The two cultures existed side by side, at all times believing in a plebiscite, and each maintaining a distinct identity and each complementing and contributing to the other. The other ethnic groups have made and are making increasing contributions of their own. Areas in Ontario have been settled by the Germans and Dutch. There are large Ukrainian communities in the western provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already indicated to the hon. member that, while this is extremely interesting, it is not on the subject. Surely, after a mild suggestion like that the hon. member will confine his remarks to the plebiscite.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I believe, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of latitude granted to the many speakers who have preceded me.
While Canada is physically part of the new world it has never cut its ties with the old world. Through thick and thin Canadians have maintained their democratic way of life. Democracy and equality go hand in hand.
Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: You cannot believe in one without believing in the other. At this time, what is more democratic than deciding on a major issue in this country. When you are denying the Canadian people a vote, Mr. Speaker, there is neither democracy nor equality.
There are many other fine qualities in a democracy, such as ideals, honour, loyalty, which are precious and must be protected with great care. This is what the Progressive Conservative party is trying to do today. If these qualities are not protected they will be broken as a result of careless handling, such as is the case in this flag debate. It is a matter of regret that a truly secret ballot could not be taken in this house. I am certain that if this were done the outcome would be different. It is no secret that this issue is tearing at the very heartstrings of many hon. members opposite. Those members, as well as some cabinet ministers, are suffering a great deal; their own consciences tells them they should support the plebiscite, and yet they are faced with party loyalty. It is difficult to understand why the government cannot agree to have a plebiscite at the next general election. The House of Commons, and especially the government, would win praise from many people who at this moment have lost complete confidence in their administration.
Perhaps at this time it would be well to put on the record some remarks made by someone outside our country. Sometimes we are put to shame by the recognition which other nations give to their appreciation of the heritage they have received from Britain. A few years ago Richard Nixon, then vice president of the United States, said this:
No people in history owe more of their heritage to another than the American people to the British.
He cited the English language, the common law and parliament, freedom of speech, assembly, press and religion, as Britain's proud legacy to the nations of the world. He went further and stressed how his country had benefited by British capital investment when the United States was an undeveloped country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely, the hon. member will endeavour to stick to the amendment to the motion which deals with a plebiscite.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the whole of the debate, and as I said before a great deal of latitude was allowed

Canadian Flag
previous speakers and many editorials were read into the record. I fail to understand the restriction at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I think I should answer that. A few days ago it was indicated that considerable latitude had been given at the time the main motion was before the house. An amendment has been moved to that motion and under our rules, as it was announced at the time, the Chair should endeavour to keep the house strictly to the amendment. Surely we can count on the co-operation of the hon. member. Ample latitude has been given for days and days during well over 185 speeches, and I think we are entitled now to stick to the amendment.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: And yet-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Before the hon. member resumes I would like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that we have been hearing interruptions ever since he started his remarks. I would point out that those making the interruptions are French speaking members who are so tender about their rights in the House of Commons. Being myself a French Canadian 1 feel ashamed to have those of my own blood making all these interruptions, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to enforce the rules on them so that decorum may be reestablished in the house.


Auguste Choquette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Standing order 34 (2) clearly provides that when an hon. member persists in irrelevance-and Your Honour has already called him to order four times; so, if that does not indicate irrelevance, then I do not know what does-Mr. Speaker may direct him to take his seat. I believe, therefore, that the rules should be applied, since you referred to strict relevancy, and that you should be adamant and order the hon. member to discontinue his speech.
I think we should all abide by the rules. Incidentally, I should like to point out, if I may, that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) knows absolutely nothing about procedure.
I understand that the burden of treason is heavy on his shoulders because of the way he voted yesterday.


Gilles Grégoire: He speaks in English.


Auguste Choquette: I would like the rules to be observed and that you should ignore the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, since he is an ignoramus.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of all the members on this side of the house, I asked that the rules be observed. I understand that the hon. member felt that those remarks were addressed to him personally, since he is one of those who always interrupts and since he took it upon himself to stand up and try to discredit me.


Auguste Choquette: Poor you.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I do not feel any twinge of conscience for the way I voted yesterday and as far as my constituents are concerned.
What I asked the Chair is to apply the rules in the case of the hon. member who just rose and who continually interrupts.
In asking you to call the hon. member to order, I should like to point out that the hon. member for Lapointe is also one of those constantly making interjections.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. For once I support the statements made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I say that we are ashamed of the attitude and of the treason of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.
I should like to refer to standing order 34 (2) since the Conservative member who has the floor made reference to freedom of speech. I refer to the standing order which provides that when a member persists in repeating things which have already been said-I would like to point out that according to statistics compiled at eleven o'clock this morning, the word "plebiscite" has been said 3,743 times exactly. Consequently, the hon. member has no reason to claim that he has not had full freedom of speech.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you then to enforce standing orders and to prevent the repetition of things which have already been said 3,743 times. In my opinion, that is sufficient evidence of the freedom of speech granted to members of the house, even for those who are repetitious.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The Chair wishes to thank hon. members for the spate of advice, good and bad, tendered it. However, the Chair feels that the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) is doing his best and I am sure he will follow the suggestions made by the Chair.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why not a plebiscite?


Gilles Grégoire: Three thousand, seven hundred and forty four.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: The disturbing elements in favour of a new flag stem from a conspiracy of non-Canadians who have set themselves to wreck Canada and the whole commonwealth. I have heard many times lately from some of my friends that they do not fear communism and are not afraid of the dangers of war caused by aggression. I do not agree with them. I fear war; I fear communism and the results of aggression.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I must tell the hon. member, I hope for the last time, that he must stick to the matter under discussion. He knows perfectly well the subject under discussion is the plebiscite. Will he please discuss it?


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I have here a letter dated October 17-


An hon. Member:: Another.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I think if the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) were in his office licking those three leaf bumper stickers he would be kept busy.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have the right to call to order a member whose remarks are not in compliance with the rules. Moreover, if the hon. member wants a sticker, I think it would be a good thing to stick one on his mouth. [Text]


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I imagine the price has gone down, Mr. Speaker.


Yvon Dupuis: You are going down.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I have a letter here from Martha J. Shangraw of Verona, Ontario-


Gilles Grégoire: If you read it you will have to table it.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that for the small sum of $50 the people of Lapointe could buy a parrot and send it here where it would do a more effective job than the hon. member. This letter is signed by Mrs. Martha J. Shangraw, a lady who had 41 relatives in the two world wars and who lost four sons.
I have another letter here asking for a plebiscite-


Gilles Grégoire: Three thousand, seven hundred and forty five.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: The lady who wrote this letter said the red ensign is a beautiful flag and she sees nothing wrong with it. She points out that her father was not born in this country but came here from Denmark.
20220-686i
Canadian Flag
I have another letter here asking for a plebiscite-


Gilles Grégoire: Three thousand seven hundred and forty six.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you have given a certain amount of latitude to the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) but it seems to me that hon. members opposite and those to my left are taking a great deal more latitude than is proper under parliamentary procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I very much regret these interruptions but surely the Chair does not have to act as a schoolmaster continually. I have made a few suggestions to hon. members and I hope they will follow them.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: They do not disturb me in the least, Mr. Speaker. I am just hopeful these hon. members will some day grow up. I have another letter here asking about a plebiscite. It is from a Mr. James Cummings. He says that it is pretty late in the day and that we must all be sick of the flag debate, but the great mass of non-vocal Canadians cannot understand why parliament must be pushed around by a minority government and why this issue cannot be decided by a plebiscite. I have one or two other messages here, Mr. Speaker, but you might rule them out of order. I have here, too, a copy of the order in council which was passed in 1945 declaring that it will be proper to fly the Canadian red ensign within or without Canada whenever the place or occasion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Langlois:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not have anything against the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) especially, but I believe he has been out of order for some time. He is now reading to us an order passed in 1945 concerning the red ensign. I agree that if we confine ourselves entirely to what is said in Beau-chesne's fourth edition it is difficult to define relevancy. As the author says, a wrong comprehension might have a serious effect on the freedom of speech and in borderline cases members should be given the benefit of the doubt. However, if we turn to May's sixteenth edition we find at page 451 the following:
A member must direct his speech to the question then under discussion.. .debate must not stray from

Canadian Flag
the question before the house or anticipate a matter appointed for the consideration of the house.
What we are considering today is an amendment put forward in the name of the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith). The main motion is something which will come before us in the future in certain circumstances, that is to say, if this amendment should be defeated. We would then be speaking on the main motion and have an opportunity to deal with the subject in general terms. Furthermore, the hon. member is continually reading either from letters or from notes, a practice which is not in accord with our rules.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, once and for all to make the hon. member stick to the subject under consideration, that is, the question of a plebiscite. If the rules were enforced I think it would shorten many of the speeches being made in this house.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I want to thank the hon. member for his consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I believe my time has just about expired. I assure you that if I have not been relevant to the motion before us, on the next occasion I will try to be more relevant. Today we are living in a world of turmoil and our only hope is our faith in God and the simple fruits of His teaching, together with the history and tradition of our past. More and more we hear about patriotism and I suggest in closing that real patriotism is when we understand that Canada is a nation, not a denomination.


David Vaughan Pugh: May
I say at the outset that I am in favour of the amendment and in favour of the proposal that a plebiscite should be held.
I take this view because, among other things, the people of Canada are only now beginning to find out the truth behind what went on in the flag committee. In the second place, I am in favour of the amendment because I do not think the government ever had a mandate to introduce a new flag. I will return to this subject later. My third reason for supporting the amendment is the confusion and indecision of the government previously with regard to its proposed flag, the Pearson three maple leaf flag, which has been withdrawn and dumped into the ash can. My fourth reason is the lack of unanimity within the flag committee.
Before proceeding further I should like to pay a tribute to the chairman of the flag committee, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten). He ruled that commit-

tee with a very firm hand. He was fair in the extreme-a lot more fair than many of the Liberals who are sitting in the house at the present time and who apparently do not want to hear anything at all about the flag. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's saw that the business before the committee was carried out properly and in an orderly fashion. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I should like to point out that this is the third speech made by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) on the matter of the flag. Since he has made the hat trick during this debate, it gives me pleasure to send him a hat with a red maple leaf. [Text]


David Vaughan Pugh: Can I have a ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: There was no question of privilege. I understand you were making some preliminary remarks and that you were about to deal with the subject under discussion.


David Vaughan Pugh: I suppose it is difficult for some hon. members to realize that remarks appreciative of another member who has carried out a most difficult task as chairman of one of our committees should be well received. As far as privilege is concerned, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is a great authority on privilege, and what he said comes in at one ear and goes out the other. That is all the attention his remarks deserve; nothing more and nothing less.
Today we are considering an amendment to the motion for concurrence in the report of the flag committee, an amendment which would require a plebiscite to be held at the time of the next election giving the people the right to declare their choice with regard to a national flag. The amendment is based on the fact that the committee did not reach its decision with sufficient unanimity. As was stated earlier, some 72 per cent of the members were in favour of it. I would point out that the last time a flag committee reported, 95 per cent of its membership expressed approval of the flag chosen on that occasion. But for some reason or other that flag was never brought before the house. I do not need to remind Your Honour who the prime minister of the day was but I must commend him on at least one thing-his common sense in not bringing forward an issue so divisive for Canada.

I think it is essential that everybody in Canada should be given a chance to express their views on the Canadian flag. I believe the designs put to the people might well be the three designs which the committee finally considered. The Canadian public is only now becoming aware of those designs. In passing, I wonder why more curiosity was not displayed on the part of the press in this regard. I wonder why pictures of those three designs were not published widely throughout Canada. The first was the Pearson flag, three maple leaves on a white background with blue edges. The second, the one chosen, was the one maple leaf, on a white background, bordered with red. The third flag was exactly the same as the flag finally chosen except that it bore the symbols of our past superimposed upon it, in other words, the union jack and the royal flag of France showing the fleur-de-lis. These three designs were not arrived at indiscriminately. In other words, the committee decided in its own right that they would group the flags in three set groups. Then we had a finalist in each one. In other words, the committee gradually cut down the number of flags in each group so that we had a final flag. It is this final flag in each group which I believe, if this amendment is agreed to and the whole matter is referred back to the committee, could form the basis of a plebiscite for the people of Canada. I do feel, however-and I will refer to the question of mandate later-that the majority of people in Canada would answer in the negative if they were given the opportunity of a plebiscite and asked whether they wished to change the flag we have at the present time. I feel absolutely positive about this, Mr. Speaker.
Now I will say a few words about the mandate, because it is to this mandate that my constituents have referred when they have said to me, "You must demand a plebiscite so we can say exactly what we wish". There is no qualification in that whatsoever. I have only to go back to the last election campaign, when there was some news received in British Columbia that there would possibly be a new flag, and candidates-


Clifford Silas Smallwood: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and with all due respect to you -and you have my complete sympathy-[DOT] could Your Honour possibly convince people over there that they should show some dignity in parliament, and would Your Honour ask the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire) to resume his seat and act like a parliamentarian, instead of-well, I will not de-
Canadian Flag
scribe the way he has been acting. I would like a little dignity to be maintained in this house.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point on this question. This is the fourth time today when the speaker who had the floor was not being interrupted or interfered with in any way, but members of the opposition have risen and stated there was interference with the hon. member. That being the case, I think it is up to the Chair to indicate whether or not there is interference with the hon. member having the floor, rather than letting these remarks appear in Hansard, as has been the case, regrettably, today, when there was not interference.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, and so that the remarks on Hansard may be accurate and complete, members on the other side of the house, and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) in particular, have been infringing the rule which I will give Your Honour; I refer to rule 12(1) dealing with order and decorum in the house. It is quite proper for us to call the attention of the Chair to this interference with the progress of debate in the chamber. Order and decorum should be maintained, under that rule, and if people are constantly interrupting or, as the hon. member for Lapointe was doing, standing up on the other side of the chamber and talking to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) loud enough for us to hear on this side, that is surely interrupting the member who has the floor and who is endeavouring to present his case in the debate.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
Since only a small group of Conservatives are making speeches, which are mostly prepared speeches, could we suggest that they hand them over to the Clerk of the house in order that we may vote immediately on this important flag issue?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Since the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has accused certain hon. members of taking no account of the decorum in this house, I respectfully submit that the useless debate going on today is deliberate filibustering and that Conservatives are destroying the whole decorum the House of Commons was enjoying-

Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: -by constant repetitions, by saying one ridiculous thing after another and by attempting to throw a monkey wrench in the works.
If the Canadian people has no confidence in parliament, the responsibility rests with the Conservatives and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Lucien Plourde: That is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: To satisfy their own pride and ambition, the Conservatives are holding up the business of the country, and I strongly protest against such an attitude. They will bear the responsibility and the consequences of this state of affairs.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, the point I drew to your attention was that the hon. member for Lapointe was standing on the other side of the house with his back to Your Honour, and he has been doing that continuously. That is what I was drawing to Your Honour's attention, regardless of what the house leader had to say.


Mr. Speaker:: I am glad to say that it is almost four o'clock and I am sure we can start a new regime immediately. I should add that the point raised is reasonable and well taken. Standing order 12 (1) says:
Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the house without debate.
The house is nice and quiet at the moment, and I do hope we can continue in that vein.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all hon. gentlemen who have contributed to my speech. I am sure that when I send the one copy home it will be read with very great interest.
As I was saying, one of the reasons for my believing there should be a plebiscite is that there was no proper mandate, certainly not from my constituency. As I said, news finally sifted down to the province of British Columbia that there might be some question of a flag raised in the last election, and it was a question put to all four candidates when they were attending four-party meetings. Those four candidates represented the Conservatives, the New Democratic party, the Liberal party and the Social Credit party. When the question was put to them as to

what they would do about changing our Canadian flag, their answer in each case was specific and without qualification: "We will not change the present Canadian flag. It is our flag, and we will fight for it". I say this, Mr. Speaker, because it has been leaked all over the place exactly how the voting went in the committee. There is no question about it, the Liberals, the members of the New Democratic party, the Creditistes and the Social Crediters all voted against our Canadian flag, the red ensign. This has been leaked out by the press. I will not mention any names, but that was the result of the vote. It was leaked out, incidentally, by a Liberal.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. "Leakman".


David Vaughan Pugh: In any event, to go back to the question of mandate, no one wishing to come to Ottawa and represent Okanagan Boundary heard anything about this, nor did they receive a request that the flag should be changed in any way, shape or form. This was the voice of the people. They elected me, but they also voted for the other candidates all down the line. I am wondering whether this did not happen in a great many more constituencies. I know that it certainly happened in the province of British Columbia. Therefore I wonder, just as the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) did this morning-another Liberal-what mandate we do have. The member for York-Humber made no bones about it; he pointed out that numerically he was here after having received a minority of the votes cast. He pointed out that numerically many, many of those members sitting on the government side of the chamber and in other parties, including our party, were here without receiving 50 per cent of the votes of their constituents. In fact very, very few members of parliament are here today with a majority vote from their constituencies. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, one asks, has there been a mandate? Then one asks, is there not a great deal of truth in that which the member for York-Humber brought forward this morning? It is true that people are sent here from everywhere in Canada, but it is an extraordinary thing that only one Liberal feels the government did not have a mandate. This is an extraordinary thing. Were the Liberals elected as Liberal members, or were they elected to come down here and throw Canada's flag into the ash can, and that is about what their action amounts to?
I do not think there is any clear mandate which can be relied upon. There has been a small amount of party literature circulated. I was very careful to watch for literature of

other parties in my constituency, but I do not remember anything-


Mr. O'Keefe:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


David Vaughan Pugh: -about a proposed change in the flag of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


David Vaughan Pugh: -Canada which would indicate to the people-


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have recognized the hon. member for St. John's East.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Mr. Speaker, I am a little tired about being told-


David Vaughan Pugh: Why do you not sit down?


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: -that we are throwing
Canada's flag in the ash can. Perhaps the hon. member opposite would read order No. 44(B) where he will see that the Prime Minister's motion-


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is your point of order?


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: -is to the effect that the union jack may be continued to be flown as a symbol of Canadian membership in the commonwealth of nations and of Canada's allegiance to the crown. Surely that is not throwing Canada's flag in the ash can.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I have yet to be convinced that the United Kingdom flag, or the royal union flag is Canada's flag. I recognize and appreciate the tone of the hon. member's voice. He is obviously from Newfoundland, and I can understand his concern, as I understand the concern of the chairman of the committee, about the actions of the government in this regard. If he will ask the members of that committee, and no doubt that information has already leaked out, he may find out what changes were made in that resolution at the last meeting of the committee, and then perhaps he will be satisfied that what I am saying is correct. Perhaps the hon. member will study again the original resolution which was brought forward by the government. What did that resolution suggest? It referred to the red ensign, not to the Canadian red ensign, whereas now you are referring to the union jack. The union jack is certainly not the red ensign and is not Canada's flag. Please
Canadian Flag
do not try to confuse the issue. The hon. member from Newfoundland should be concerned because of the way this proposed flag was brought forward, and the second rate position into which the royal union flag has been placed, for certain obvious purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I did use the word "ash can". I will not use that word. The Canadian red ensign was turned down by the committee. I have explained this fact to the people of my riding, and that is one reason they demand a plebiscite. They feel they are now getting the real story of what took place at the committee meetings, and are beginning to understand that the report of that committee as it appears on the order paper does not give a clear picture of what took place.
The reason I recommend that three flags be presented to the people of Canada for a choice is that the people wish to have a say in which flag should be Canada's national flag. If the red ensign is turned down as the first choice, then the people will have made that choice. Had the efforts of the committee in arriving at its conclusion been represented accurately-


An hon. Member:: Carried.


David Vaughan Pugh: If what we are presently discussing is carried, that will be marvellous.
After the red ensign was turned down in the committee by all members other than Conservative members, the Conservative members did their level best, as the members of that committee will testify, to produce a flag which would incorporate something symbolic of our past, such as the union jack and the fleur-de-lis. I do not agree with certain statements made by committee members who said that the fleur-de-lis could not form a part of a Canadian national flag because no French Canadian owed allegiance to royal France.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) is entirely out of order. I would like to point out to the Chair that the Conservatives, who claim that this debate is important, at this moment only number 10 out of 95; and among those 10, one voted against the plebiscite, namely, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). When they claim that this debate is important and when only 10 are present in the house, it is evident that there is something wrong somewhere. Furthermore, they are always talking about something else than

Canadian Flag
the matter under discussion. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to be stricter and to call them to order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. The fact that only 10 Conservative members are present does not mean that the rules are violated.
However, I may add that the hon. member who has the floor is out of order because he is not talking about the matter before us at this moment.

I will repeat that in English, if I may. The fact that there are only ten members of the Conservative party in the house does not make the hon. member in order or out of order. The fact that the hon. member is not speaking to the question before the house for consideration does, however, make him out of order. The amendment having to do with a plebiscite is the subject now before this house for study.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, I should like to point out that the attendance of the Conservative members in this house this afternoon has been as good as, if not better than that of the members of any other party.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please.


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, order. I do not think the question raised by the hon. member as to members' attendance in this house has any relation to the subject now under study. The hon. member who made reference to attendance was himself out of order. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary has the floor.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to point out to the Chair that 10 Conservative members are worth at least 150 members of the other parties.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must point out to the Chair that the hon. member for Three Bivers is

not at the present time in his seat and that he should not be recognized.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, it is true that the hon. member for Three Rivers is not in his seat. [Text]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary has the floor.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to point out to the Chair that the hon. member for Three Rivers was not in his seat when he spoke.
There are six members of our party in the house now, that is 50 per cent, and they are worth at least 95 Conservatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. The fact that the hon. member for Three Rivers was not speaking from his seat was taken into consideration by the Chair. Now we will listen to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


Mr. Skoreyko:: I should like to speak to the question of privilege, or on the point of order, raised by the hon. member for Lapointe, Mr. Speaker, and his reference to the number of Conservative members in the House of Commons. I want to put on record the fact that the Conservative party has never abdicated its role in this house on the flag debate, as has the Creditiste party on a number of occasions when none of their members were in their seats.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. I think the Chair has received sufficient advice as to which members are in their seats and which are not in their seats, and as to how many members are in the house, and as to how many are absent. Perhaps now we can have a little order so that we can listen to the rest of the hon. member's words of wisdom that are going to be placed on record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Knowles:: The Speaker is not supposed to comment on the debate.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, apparently I have been ruled out of order because I have not been referring to the plebiscite. I suggest with the greatest respect that about every 15th word I have used has been the word "plebiscite".
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the substitution in the Speaker's chair will make no difference with regard to any remarks that have been

made or any remarks I am about to make. As I have said, I feel there are a number of reasons for a plebiscite, and I am referring to those reasons and nothing else. I mentioned that the people of Canada are only now finding out about the decision of the flag committee. I mentioned the fact that I did not believe there was a mandate. I mentioned the fact that there was confusion and indecision arising out of the government's proposal, namely, the Pearson flag, and I said finally that to my mind there was not sufficient unanimity in the decision of the flag committee for us to accept it. The main motion was for concurrence in the sixth report of the flag committee, but I have had the opportunity-


Gilles Grégoire: There are only nine Conservatives in the house now, because another one has just left.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Don't take any notice of that.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether it would not be better to use the word "duck" in reference to that hon. member, than the word that has been used.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


David Vaughan Pugh: I have put forward these four points and, when I was so rudely interrupted again, I was about to say that since the committee made its report on the flag I have had the opportunity of visiting my constituency. What I am putting forward today represents the very things that have been said to me and impressed upon me by my constituents. They tell me that for the reasons I have been putting forward and which I intend to keep on putting forward they feel they have a right to have the final vote themselves on the flag question by way of a plebiscite. I am not quite sure whether they want a plebiscite at the present time or at the next general election but it would save expense if it were held at the next general election and that might well be the time to have it.
Because of the interruptions, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not mind while I pause for station announcements and to look over my notes. I said that confusion had come out of the flag committee and I mean just that. A great deal of the confusion was caused by the good public relations story written by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) which was blatantly published 20220-687
Canadian Flag
right across Canada prior to the committee report being presented to the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Now there are eight Conservatives here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Could we have order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: That is terrible.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, do we have to listen to that? I ask you to put that man out of the chamber so that I may continue my speech uninterrupted by him every five seconds. You must do it and I am asking you to do it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that the Chair is listening with great interest to what he is saying. I am sure he will realize it is impossible for the Chair to make sure there is 100 per cent attention to everything that is said at all times. I assure the hon. member that I will protect him and protect his right to speak without interruption, if in the opinion of the Chair there is a disturbance that prevents hon. members who want to listen to him from having the opportunity and the advantage of hearing what he has to say.


David Vaughan Pugh: May I ask one more thing, Mr. Speaker. I have been watching the clock fairly carefully, but in view of the numerous interruptions and the speeches which have been interpolated into mine, I wonder whether you would advise me by what time my speech has to be concluded.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is not a proper question to the Chair. The hon. member has 40 minutes to speak and he will be allowed 40 minutes.


David Vaughan Pugh: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to the confusion which has arisen over this matter and I mean just that. A great deal of that confusion has been generated by the pre-leaking or pre-publication of a story by a member of the committee which was grossly unfair and aroused quite a bit of indignation.
When I was in my constituency I was questioned about the laughter that went on in the committee. The people of Canada are worried about the flag that has been produced by this committee, a flag with laughter attached to it, a flag with a tactical advantage attached to it. I have only to refer to newspaper reports at the time. "Strategy is Big Blunder", says one Liberal member of the flag committee. Another one says, "Tac-

Canadian Flag
tics Fell Through", or something like that. It does not really matter. The point is that people asked me about this.
One member went on to say that there was a tremendous amount of laughter, that the Tories in the committee were completely baffled, that they were apparently taken off base and so on. When I discussed the matter with my constituents they told me in no uncertain terms that for this very reason they would like to have a vote on the flag. They want a vote and they should get it. If there was any laughter in that committee or any amazement on Tory faces it was due to one thing, that when the Pearson flag with three maple leaves and blue borders was being considered not one Liberal voted for it. Every Liberal voted against it. To me this means one thing, and it means one thing to the people of my constituency and to many more in British Columbia and elsewhere. It is why they are asking for a plebiscite. They are asking for a very good reason. They do not want a laughingstock flag. They do not want a tactical advantage flag. They do not want a strategic retreat flag or anything like that. They want to be able to look at the flags and decide for themselves.
I could quote the rather blatant language that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra used. If the laughter meant anything to the Tory members of the committee it meant just three things. The Liberal members were laughing at their leader and their cabinet. They had said they were going to stand or fall on the three maple leaf flag and they made it a matter of confidence. They bedevilled parliament with it all the way through. The second reason why they were laughing was that they had kept all of us here throughout the spring and all during the summer and fall by shooting the flag at us, instead of dealing with important business. They tried to make out it was an important issue. The third thing they were laughing at was the people of Canada themselves. That laughter was hollow. Let us not produce a hollow flag as a result of it. That laughter was based on those three things, and by producing this flag at this time they have kept everybody in the country in an uproar and a state of unrest.
The Liberals have said to the people all across Canada that we are not getting along with the business of the house. What utter balderdash. That is not true. I think we have made a fair go at things in this session of parliament and it is time the people knew it.

If we have spent 23 days on the flag the people should realize that we have been here for nearly 10 months. The people should realize that we were here all summer and that 23 days does not add up to much compared with ten months.
My people are annoyed about this matter. They say they have been bamboozled on the flag question from the beginning. We know the truth now and they jolly well should know the truth. I am not going to say any more now, although I have quite a bit more additional material. The people are annoyed at various things that have appeared in newspaper articles, one of which, as I say, was published prior to the committee presenting its report to the house. This was a most disgraceful thing. There was no reason for it whatsoever. The time of publication might have been an error on the part of that hon. member, but as the chairman of the committee knows I objected strongly to him at the time. I wonder how he feels? I wonder why he has not made a speech condemning this man, not because he allowed the article to be published prior to the presentation of the report but because of the misinformation he tried to feed the people of Canada. My people are annoyed about this and this is one of the reasons why they want to have a voice in the choosing of their own flag. They want to have a plebiscite. They want to be able to talk and make a decision outside of this flag committee. I was proud of this flag committee up until the very last morning. I was proud of it because I thought the members made an honest effort to get together. Certainly many of the members had fixed opinions at the start. There was no question about it. The Liberal members had a flag, and perhaps they bent over backwards when they voted for another flag. I think the other parties tried to be considerate.
When you look at the background of some of these members who were on that committee, you could not expect anything else. They were fixed in their determination to bring in a flag. I do not believe, for instance, that all members of the New Democratic party would agree with what their member finally decided. They have expressed this view in the House of Commons. In fact, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said that a plebiscite is necessary. I agree with him 100 per cent. I only heard part of the speech delivered this morning by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). When 1 left I thought rather deeply about this speech and I asked myself, in demanding a plebiscite is this man a radical? I asked myself, is he a

person who is not a Liberal who somehow got in there? Then, I thought, no, I can look around the Liberal benches and realize, since I have friends over there, that a good proportion of them believe a plebiscite would be a good thing.


Gilles Grégoire: Ready for the question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the hon. member who has the floor has the right to continue his remarks without being interrupted.


David Vaughan Pugh: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Before the hon. member proceeds, and since there was a break at this point, I wonder if he would clarify one point for me? It is the first time I have heard it raised in this house so far as I recall. I have listened with interest to his remarks, and would he reaffirm the statement that the Liberal members on the committee, in fact, did vote against the design that was proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson)?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; this point raised by the hon. member may be very interesting. Certainly, it seems to me that the point was made previously by the hon. member who has the floor. However, it does appear to the Chair to be a little remote from the amendment which is under consideration.


David Vaughan Pugh: I rather think the hon. member who posed the question has run into the same thing in his riding as I have and, no doubt, as a lot of Liberal members have as well. It is this: How was it that 14 members in the committee could have voted for a flag if they did not want it? The answer is very simple. There was no vote for that flag. There was a preference vote between the three maple leaf flag and the one maple leaf flag. These were the only two flags left before the committee. We were asked for our preference. We Conservatives could not vote for the three maple leaf design. Were the Liberals going to vote for the three maple leaf design? Well, after sweating it out here during the summer and most of the fall, you would have thought that possibly the Liberals would have voted for a flag which had been put to us on a take it or leave it basis. You would have thought that. I am glad the hon. gentleman did pose the question because a lot of people do not understand there was a preference. However, everyone voted against that Pearson flag; no one voted for it, not even one teeny, weeny, little Liberal.
Now, to me, it is a shocking thing- 20220-6874
Canadian Flag


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; in the remaining minutes the hon. member has at his disposal, I wonder if he would limit his remarks to the subject matter of the debate?


David Vaughan Pugh: Well, yes, Mr. Speaker; if I had another 20 minutes, I would go on-


Gilles Grégoire: No, no; spare us.


David Vaughan Pugh: If I had another 20 minutes, I would go on extolling the virtues of the hon. member for York-Humber, the one Liberal who spoke this morning. I would recommend to the people all over Canada that they read his speech. I would recommend that they take his speech to heart. I would recommend that Liberal members should take it to heart. I hope that when you open your mail and when you read your newspapers or listen to other news media throughout Canada tomorrow, you will really take these remarks to heart because, in my opinion, they present the crux of the whole situation. As I say, Mr. Speaker, if I had 20 minutes I would take portions of that speech and put them forward.
However, may I content myself by saying, in conclusion, that there is merit, not only merit but absolute necessity, in the idea of holding a plebiscite at the present time. My reason for saying this is that the people of Canada have before them something that goes deeper than a little piece of legislation which is brought before the house. It goes to the very depth of our being, our historical background, and all of those things which count. This is not something that can be settled as easily as some legislative matters.
However, there is a far more important factor in my opinion, and that is that parliament is not the place to settle the flag question. This flag issue should be removed from parliament now so, as some hon. members suggest, we can get on with other more important business. I have another reason which I feel is cogent and irrefutable, and that is that so far as the public are concerned the flag question has become political in the extreme. I feel that if there is any choice made in this House of Commons, people all over Canada are going to remain divided on this issue. There is not going to be any settlement of it by a vote of this House of Commons. There will always be a substantial number of people who will feel the flag has been railroaded through. Later on, it will be felt that the flag has been railroaded through by a minority or, as the hon. member for York-Humber has said, by a

Canadian Flag
minority of minorities, because most members who sit in this house are here on minority votes.
As I said before, I do not want a flag that is the laughingstock of the country, or one that was brought about by tactics. I want a flag that I can look at, just as I look at our Canadian flag today, a flag that has my respect, a flag which I know has the respect of the nations around the world.


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped I would not have found it necessary to make a second speech on the flag issue and make it today. I say that I had hoped I would not have been called upon to make a speech at this time because it was my hope, my vain hope, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) would have smartened up to some extent by this time and would have seen the handwriting on the wall or listened to the voice of the people of Canada demanding that the flag issue be settled by a plebiscite. Either that, or it should be dropped entirely because we want to continue with the flag that has been Canada's for so many years, at least until it becomes possible to choose a flag that will represent the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Canada.
It is amazing that in their wisdom the Prime Minister and the government have not seen fit to call this debate off. It is not the opposition that is continuing the debate; it is the government. The majority of the people of Canada wish to have a chance to say what flag shall be Canada's for all time to come. This is not a today, tomorrow or next year deal. When the flag is chosen it will be forever.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There are conversations going on across the aisle, something which is highly reprehensible and which makes it difficult for the Chair to follow the speech being made. If hon. members wish to continue their conversations I invite them to do so outside the chamber.


Frank John William Fane: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, although I must say it does not worry me because I have been interrupted many times from the people on my left. As I was saying, the vast majority of the people of Canada-


Gilles Grégoire: Only six now, Mr. Speaker.


Frank John William Fane: As I remarked, Mr. Speaker, the leader of "la canaille a gauche", that is the rabble to the left does not worry me a bit, but

I can tell you that whenever he carries on in this way he is degrading the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. May I invite the hon. member to return to the subject of his speech. I realize the hon. member was interrupted and I have tried to co-operate with him, but I would ask him to cooperate with the Chair and deal with the subject matter of the debate.


Frank John William Fane: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, the people of Canada should have a chance to say whether they favour a new flag or not. They should have a chance to choose a flag which they can respect and, if necessary, fight for. It should be a flag worth that. The choice of a flag is for keeps and the majority of the people realize this.
The action of the Prime Minister makes me wonder who is blackmailing him and why he must pass on this blackmailing to parliament and the people of Canada. We are being presented with a flag that the majority of the people do not want pushed down their throats. I do not need to tell you where I stand, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure everybody in the country knows that the hon. member for Vegreville, Alberta, stands for a plebiscite on the flag issue. I also stand for the continuation of the Canadian red ensign as the flag of Canada, at least until we get something else that is worth standing for, looking up to and fighting for, and we sure have not got anything like that brought before us yet.
It has been suggested that the flag was the subject of an election promise in the 1962 and 1963 elections, but I can assure you it was not an issue in my constituency. I have told you previously that whenever I was asked about the flag I made it perfectly clear what flag I stood for, and why. In fact I got a standing ovation at each one of my meetings where I was asked about the flag. There were six candidates in my constituency and none of them mentioned the flag at any of the 12 joint meetings we had, and in addition to those meetings I had 45 meetings of my own. I believe 86 per cent of the eligible voters in my constituency voted and I got approximately 70 per cent of their votes. For that reason I believe I have a mandate to continue the attitude I have towards a plebiscite and a flag for Canada.
I know that the flag committee worked assiduously. It held 45 meetings in six weeks. Its members were chosen from all parties in the house and I know they were most fortunate in having such an estimable member

as the hon. member lor Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) as their chairman. Nobody can point a finger at anything wrong in what he did or said during the time he was chairman of that committee.
I am not qualified to say anything about how the committee did its work because I was not a member of it. I was perhaps a little too set in my ways on the Conservative side because, in the light of what has happened, I would not have given up one little bit of my support for the Canadian red ensign. However, I must say I was very shocked at the result of the committee's deliberations in bringing forward a flag that is not distinctive in any way. It certainly has got a red maple leaf, a dead maple leaf on it, but its background is exactly the same as the flag of Peru. How can that be considered a distinctive Canadian flag? The maple leaf alone is not adequate to make it distinctive. Though I hold the maple leaf in high regard it is not distinctive of Canada, except as an emblem used during war and on Canadian exports. In the part of Canada from which I come a great many of the people do not know what this is all about because they have never seen a maple leaf.
Before I get into trouble I intend to read the amendment which is before the house because I have to have something to follow and if I read this I will be speaking within the narrow lines of what I may speak about; I do not want to get off the track because I do not like to be called to order. The amendment moved by my hon. friend from Perth (Mr. Monteith) is as follows:
That the sixth report of the special committee be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to strike out paragraph 7 of the said report and substitute therefor the following:
"However, as the final vote of the committee did not reveal a sufficient degree of unanimity for the proposed design for a national flag for Canada your committee therefore recommends that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to conduct a plebiscite to be held at the next general election in order that the Canadian people may be given heir rightful opportunity to declare their choice concerning a national flag".
And that the committee for such purpose be revived.
That is what I have to talk about for the rest of the time allotted to me.
I am amazed that so far only three of the members of the flag committee from the government side have seen fit to stand up and make their reports to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada. The five members from the Conservative party have made
Canadian Flag
their reports. As to the members from the smaller parties, I believe none has so far made his report.


An hon. Member:: There is one; the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott).


Frank John William Fane: I am sorry. I am reminded that the hon. member for Danforth, of the New Democratic party, has made his report. I regret I omitted him. But the situation on the other side of the house is a very strange one. One wonders what is happening in the Liberal party. Have these people been told they must not speak? Are they afraid to speak? Surely they are not just zombies, now, unable to make up their minds about anything. One member has said his piece. He said it very well today and he is worthy of respect throughout Canada. As to the other two members who spoke from the government benches, the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Cadieux) made a good and sensible speech while the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) was his usual self. We will leave it at that.
This is only part of what we fail to understand. We wonder why during the last election spokesmen for the government said nothing about this intention to introduce a new flag. I suggest there was one good reason for this silence. Had the Liberal party come out and shown the people of Canada the flag they proposed to foist on them there would be 75 fewer Liberals in this house today. The people of Canada would not have accepted such a proposal no matter what they might have felt otherwise. I believe this to be a fact.
Speaking of the plebiscite, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the government are so sure they are right and that the people are behind them in their wish to have a new flag for Canada, why are they so afraid of letting the people express their views at the time of the next election? The cost would not be very great. In any case considerations as to cost would not deter the present government because they spend money like water, like a drunken sailor does, or is alleged to do. The amount of money it would cost to conduct a plebiscite on the flag issue at the time of the next election would be very small compared to the cost of the election itself. Indeed, about the only extra cost would be the extra ballot papers required and the transportation of those ballots to a central place for evaluation. Presumably less division would be created in Canada if the ballots were all brought to Ottawa and counted here. This flag

Canadian Flag
issue is one which has divided Canada and set one part against another. And all this has happened lor no good reason at all, because this issue is nothing but a phony issue; it is not a real issue in this country.
The people ol Canada have a flag which they have looked up to and for which they have fought. Many thousands of Canadians have died under it. Though we did not carry it along with our advancing columns during the war, it was behind us. It was there. So we can say we lived under that flag, we fought for it, and many died for it.
In case anyone here has forgotten the constituency that I represent, let me remind him it is a constituency comprised of some 45,000 people. There are people of 40 different national origins there. There are 6,100 Anglo-Saxons. There are 30,000 whose origin is in some part of central Europe and 1,300 people of French Canadian origin. In addition there are 1,300 of our original citizens-the people we call North American Indians. Also living in this constituency are 3,000 people of German extraction, besides many of Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Finnish origin, as well as representatives of almost every other nationality one cares to mention. I would say that 90 per cent of these people want a plebiscite. They want a voice in choosing the flag which will fly over them, a flag they will be able to respect. That is what they say. I think that if the plebiscite were held there would be an almost 100 per cent turnout of electors because, as I have said, in the last election I believe 86 per cent of the electors of my constituency turned out to vote.
I have had many, many letters from and many, many interviews with various people in my constituency. I said in my last address that only three people had told me they stood for the three maple leaf flag. I have had one letter supporting this new flag with one red maple leaf on a white background, with red borders at each end of the flag. This man wrote to me, "Let's stop talking about it and get on with the business of Canada".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank John William Fane: That is one man out of 45,000, which is not a very big percentage.


Mr. Brewin:: One wise man.


Frank John William Fane: I might also say, Mr. Speaker, that the N.D.P. did not do too well in my constituency, and they are not likely to do well in the future either. I am just stating facts which have nothing to do with me, but

just with them. Thousands of people have told me, "Let's have a plebiscite and let's say what flag we want". That is my mandate, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I can stand up today in this house, or on any other day that I am allowed to do so, and say these things; and what I have said I will say anywhere, because I am willing to stand behind anything I have said.


Mr. Leduc:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit one question?


Frank John William Fane: I certainly will permit one question from my hon. friend.


Rodolphe Leduc: The hon. member has mentioned that he stands behind every word he has said. Would he stand behind his word when he said that the people in his riding did not know what a maple leaf was?


Frank John William Fane: I said that the vast majority of my people had never seen a maple leaf, and that is quite different. They know what a maple leaf is supposed to look like, but they have never seen one, because they do not grow in my part of the country.


Yvon Dupuis: You don't have any money there? You can't travel and see them?


An hon. Member:: Not from selling bumper stickers.


Frank John William Fane: Oh, I could not take a trip to Asia and all over the world, as did the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis). I do not have the government behind me at the moment.


Mr. Dinsdale:: He was selling stickers.


An hon. Member:: Haven't your people seen pictures of a maple leaf?


Frank John William Fane: You can see a replica or depiction of something almost anywhere, but until you come to this part of the country you probably do not see maple leaves in real life.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Frank John William Fane: How profound, Mr. Speaker.


Yvon Dupuis: Question.


Frank John William Fane: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that after all these interruptions members of the various parties who have been yelling for the question to be put think I am going to sit down and let it happen. How wrong they are, because I am just not that type. I wish to say again that it amazes me that all the Liberal members do not rise in their seats

and say where they stand on this flag issue. Are they scared? Are they brainwashed? Are they just following orders, like the trained seals they are emulating? They will not get up and speak; they only speak from their seats. They will not get up and identify themselves. Are they sitting on the fence in the hope that they will get some reflected glory because they did not say anything? They are plenty vocal at other times, so why do they not get up and speak in this debate? Why can they not get up and state where they stand, in some way other than just sitting in their seats and interrupting those who hope they have something to say in which their people will be interested? That also goes for the other parties, the lesser groups in this house. They are not carrying their weight in this debate; they sit around and yell "filibuster" and let it go at that. That is their contribution. What a contribution, Mr. Speaker.


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



REPRESENTATION ACT


Gilles Grégoire: the second reading of Bill No. C-66, to amend the Representation Act.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, it will only take me two minutes to explain this bill. Its purpose is to change the name of the electoral district of "Lapointe" to that of "Jonquiere".
I should remind the house that such was the promise made by Liberal candidates during the last election.
As a matter of fact, I wish to point out that this promise was made by the former Liberal member for Lapointe, Mr. Augustin Brassard, at a public meeting attended by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who applauded and said the promise would be kept.
The promise was also made by the Liberal candidate during the 1963 election campaign.
It was also taken up by the Tory candidates during the 1962 and 1963 elections.
It was also promised by the N.D.P. candidate in 1963; that party had no candidate in my riding, in 1962.
Representation Act
In fact, I was the only one not to promise that. I felt that it should not be part of my platform, but it was promised by the Liberal candidate and former member, for the riding, before the present Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition. That promise was made with the approval of the present Prime Minister, and in his presence. Since the Prime Minister now seeks to keep his promise concerning the adoption of a national flag within two years, I am sure he will want his party to keep the promise made by its candidate in the riding of Lapointe, just as he is making praiseworthy efforts to keep his pledge with respect to the adoption of a distinctive flag.
Mr. Speaker, I did not make that promise during the election campaign, but afterwards, I received many such requests from chambers of commerce, service clubs and the municipalities of Jonquiere, Kenogami and Arvida. I even received some from tourist associations, etc., because all feel that by substituting the name of Jonquiere for that of Lapointe, it would be easier to locate the riding in the interest of the tourist industry and others.
Mr. Speaker, the constituency of Lapointe has been named after Jean Lapointe, the first farmer in that area. The name of Msgr. Lapointe, the first bishop of the diocese, is also mentioned.


Auguste Choquette: And Ernest Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere has just mentioned the name of Mr. Ernest Lapointe. But in the opinion of all, the riding was so named in honour of the first farmer of the district, Mr. Jean Lapointe.
Under the circumstances, there are no political implications involved. As a matter of fact, the provincial riding bears the name of Jonquiere, and since the largest city of the county is called Jonquiere, there is every indication that this name would be more appropriate and, at the same time, more suitable for the people.
Representatives of all political parties have submitted requests to me and the Liberal member for Jonquiere in the Quebec legislature told me himself that he approved this change of designation. It must be remembered that he also represents a large number of electors.
Therefore, I submit that this bill deals with a change of name only and does not involve any government policy. It is only a matter of granting the wishes of the electors of that riding.

Representation Act
It has been said also that consideration of that bill could be postponed until redistribution has been completed because the limits of some ridings will change.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it clear that the limits of the riding of Lapointe will not change because our region is rather remote, a national park a hundred miles long cuts through it and there is not a house, post office or resident near it. Therefore, nothing will be added to it.
In the area itself, the four constituencies are extremely well divided, proportionately, according to new standards adopted in the legislation concerning redistribution.
No changes are expected in our area.
Mr. Speaker, before ending my remarks, I would like to say that if the house welcomes this change of name, it will be an all-party agreement. One group will not be allowed to take credit for it more than another because it is a matter where there is no room for politics. I am not asking this change for a personal advantage but for that of my constituents.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Yvon Dupuis: Could the hon. member tell the house whether the constituency of Lapointe also includes the municipalities of Arvida and Kenogami? If so, does he not think that he should include the names of Kenogami and Arvida and change the present designation of his constituency to that of Kenogami-Jonquiere- Arvida?
Does he not feel that, should changes be made a few months from now, following the redistribution-and time only will tell-should the municipalities of Arvida and Kenogami be removed from the riding of Lapointe, it would be wiser to wait until the establishment of the new redistribution since everything could then be settled in a more useful and permanent way?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister without Portfolio has asked that question, and I wish to tell him that I have had representations from the Jonquiere, Kenogami and Arvida chambers of commerce, as well as from social clubs in Kenogami and Arvida. All these organizations requested, almost unanimously, that the name of the electoral district be changed to Jonquiere only, and not to Jonquiere-Kenogami-Arvida.

Representatives from the various service clubs in the towns of Arvida and Kenogami made representations with a view to changing the name of the electoral district to Jonquiere, and that opinion was unanimous throughout the district.
The representatives of owners' leagues in Jonquiere and Arvida also requested that it be named only Jonquiere, and not Jonquiere-Kenogami-Arvida.
Moreover, it is not always advantageous to represent a riding with a compound or long name like St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville. In fact, I remember hearing the Minister without Portfolio say that the name of his constituency is rather long. I can even recall that two years ago he said that St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville was a rather long name for an electoral district, and I think he was right at the time.
Mr. Speaker, since the representatives of the four parties of the riding of Lapointe as well as the Liberal member for Jonquiere at the legislative assembly unanimously agree that the constituency of Lapointe should bear the name of Jonquiere, I feel that we should pass this bill. It would then be a move made by the four political parties, not only by one. We would thus meet the wishes of my constituents, in general those who live in the riding of Lapointe, and I would be happy if the promise made officially by the Liberal candidate, in 1962, in the presence of the present Prime Minister, were kept. All the voters in the riding of Lapointe would then be satisfied.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? He is probably aware that in English we sometimes say that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I am sure there is a comparable expression in French. I am wondering whether we would feel the same about the hon. member, whom we have got to know and love as the member for Lapointe, if his name were changed. Would he smell the same with a different name?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) may rest assured that, within a month, he will have heard the name of the constituency Jonquiere often enough so that this name will become as favourably known as it was in the past.


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, we heard the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) mention the promises made by the former member for Lapointe, by the former candidates and by the provincial members.
But apart from the statements which were made in this house by the hon. member for Lapointe, I have no personal knowledge of any representations which would have been made-


Gilles Grégoire: In Montreal.


Georges-C. Lachance: -either by the electors of this riding or by the various organizations, chambers of commerce, municipalities, etc. Mr. Speaker, changing the name of a riding is just as serious as changing the name of an individual, and the hon. member for Lapointe must have very serious and interesting reasons to put forward this request, but the house must study this question as seriously as it would for any other riding.
He spoke of the representations made to him.
As I just said, I personally did not get any. I never heard about that. It may be that I did not happen to read certain newspapers of that area which might have dealt with the question, but I never heard about it in my riding, in Montreal or in Ottawa.


Gilles Grégoire: No wonder.


Georges-C. Lachance: Have representations been made also to other authorities, to this government or to the chief electoral officer?
I could not say but I never heard about it.
Now, as the hon. member for Lapointe said, the name of the riding would be changed as a result of representations made by candidates or members. It could be a good reason for discussing the matter. That is what we are doing today.
But I do not feel it is sufficient reason to pass the bill as hastily as all that, without giving it very serious consideration.
A moment ago the hon. member for Lapointe referred to the forthcoming redistribution. Perhaps the boundaries of this constituency will not be changed but, there again, the hon. member can give us no assurance.
Indeed, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) told us that other cities and towns might be interested.
If an inquiry were made, perhaps we would find that both Arvida and Kenogami are
Representation Act
interested in having their name given to the constituency now called Lapointe.
There are other municipalities in the constituency of Lapointe. I am sure that the hon. member for Lapointe knows them very well because he has surely visited them. There are, in addition to Jonquiere, the municipalities of Larouche, Bourget, Tache -great names-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I would point out to the hon. member for Lafontaine that there are no municipalities of Bourget and Tache, but that there are the townships of Bourget and Tache.
As this hon. member seems to have absolutely no information about my constituency, I am not surprised to see that he was not aware of any representations-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member may disagree with what is being said by the hon. member for Lafontaine. The point he is raising now is refutation. It is not a point of order. The hon. member for Lafontaine.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of course, of the store of knowledge of the hon. member for Lapointe, but I think he must know whether township municipalities exist. When one mentions a township or a municipality, it is for the purpose of an enumeration and I note that after the towns of Larouche, Bourget and Tache we also find Labrie and Begin, for example-


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member allow me a question?
Does the municipality owe its name to Hon. Joseph D. Begin, a great friend of the hon. member for Lapointe?


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, there is in fact, a municipality of Begin. The name has existed for a long time; it is a parish where respectable persons are living and I could not perhaps say as much about the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Georges-C. Lachance: I should like to add that the constituency of Lapointe was established following the 1941 census. It was created in 1947 under a new legislation, and it was. first represented by Mr. Jules Gauthier.


Gilles Grégoire: A notary from Jonquiere.

Representation Act


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I did some research in order to find the origin of the name of this constituency.
The hon. member for Lapointe referred to a certain Jean Lapointe, a farmer of that district.
People I met told me that there might be some relationship between the designation of that riding and the name of a great Canadian, Hon. Ernest Lapointe, as well as that of Bishop Lapointe, at one time teacher at the Chicoutimi seminary and also vicar general of the Chicoutimi diocese, who died in 1947.
It should also be noted that the hon. member for Lapointe did mention it a few moments ago.
If we refer to a speech which is probably the first made by the first member of parliament for Lapointe in this house, we can read this, among other things, as reported in Hansard for April 4, 1950, page 1559:
The county of Lapointe the name of which recalls both Mgr. Eugene Lapointe and his namesake the former minister of justice, owes to him-at least to a great extent-its existence as a distinct unit.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the first hon. member for Lapointe is apparently recalling-and this was in 1950, shortly after the setting up of the county-that that name has some connection with those of Mgr. Eugene Lapointe and the Hon. Ernest Lapointe. However, he did not mention the name of Mr. Jean Lapointe who was no doubt an honourable gentleman but only referred to Mr. Ernest Lapointe and Mgr. Lapointe.
Now, it could be that that name was chosen to commemorate the name of Mr. Jean Lapointe, but, personally, I think that if the house is of the opinion that Hon. Mr. Ernest Lapointe was a great statesman and if the name of Lapointe should be changed today, I would be very sorry to see that name disappear when it commemorates such important men as the former minister of justice, that great French Canadian statesman.
I also noticed several other things. The citizens of the city of Jonquiere would certainly be very pleased to see the name of the riding changed to Jonquiere. The hon. member for Lapointe told us that some people in Arvida and Kenogami were also in agreement.
I said that personally I had never heard of it. I would think that the people of Jonquiere would not want to be accused of selfishness with regard to the other two large cities of that riding by having the name of the riding changed.

I congratulate the hon. member on the love he feels for his riding. But I do not think he should let his love strangle and kill it by wanting to give it a new entity through a new name, for instance.
There is no doubt that this matter of redistribution, which is to be carried out soon, is extremely important at this stage. I do not think the house has given adequate consideration to this problem to be able to take a decision today. There is a committee which has been established through legislation passed by the house to study the problem of redistribution. I believe, and the hon. member for Lapointe is quite aware of it, that representations could be made to the commissioners and other people whose function it is to study the problems of the new redistribution.
That is all I have to say. I know that the hon. member for Lapointe is interested in this matter. I commend him for it. But we are interested too in having more details. I should appreciate it very much if the hon. member for Lapointe would send us copies of those resolutions from municipalities or organizations, if any. We must admit that within a municipality or an association, there could be one group in favour of a certain project while the other would not be. I do not know whether the majority of associations within his riding wish the name to be changed. I do not know whether there is a majority of municipalities or cities in favour of that change.
The hon. member for Lapointe said he made no promises. I congratulate him for this. He did not promise to change the name. I suggest he must feel very comfortable, whether a change is made or not. Therefore, if the hon. member for Lapointe made no promises in this regard his electors should not hold anything against him in the event of the name of the Lapointe constituency remaining as it is.


Gilles Grégoire: It is impossible, Mr. Speaker, because my constituents, far from holding a grudge against me, are satisfied with me.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I submit that before the house decides to change the name of a constituency, particularly when it is a constituency bearing the name of great men whose names went down in history, the matter has to be considered very seriously. Moreover, all those of this riding who are represented by associations or groups of the various political parties, and even those who are not interested in politics, must be heard. Otherwise, it would

remove famous names from the electoral map, thus creating a most important precedent.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Georges-C. Lachance: Certainly.


Gilles Grégoire: After hearing the hon. member for Lafontaine, I feel he would probably be in favour of holding a plebiscite in his electoral district, in this connection. Is that what he means when he says that everyone would like to be heard? Is that what he is suggesting, that a plebiscite be held in the district of Lapointe?


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I am in a good position to answer this question, for I have not spoken of a plebiscite but only of the resolutions put forward by various public organizations. The hon. member for Lapointe introduced the subject himself, saying he had received representations from various municipal councils, public organizations, chambers of commerce and others.
I have not seen as yet the resolution by those public bodies or those municipalities.
I do not know if the hon. member for Lapointe has resolutions from those public bodies. This is not a question of a plebiscite. I did not say that the voters of the constituency should cast their votes to decide if it must change its name, if it must be called the constituency of Lapointe or if it should changed to the constituency of Jonquiere or, as suggested or mentioned by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), to the name of Kenogami-Jonquiere-Arvida.
We are prepared to accept the word of the hon. member for Lapointe when he says that representations were made to him. Only we did not see those representations, and we would be interested in questioning those people through some committee which might be interested in hearing them. Changing the name of a riding is a very serious matter.
Those were the remarks I intended to make on that issue. I am not against the change, but I would like this matter to be considered more closely by a special committee or by the privileges and elections committee.


Gilles Grégoire: How many members would sit on the committee? Would this matter be referred to a parliamentary committee?


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I believe
there is a committee which could examine the case quite properly, the privileges and elections committee.
However, Mr. Speaker, I was talking more particularly about the committee which is
Representation Act
looking after redistribution at present. That was the agency I was referring to when I mentioned that a committee or a public body could be appointed to examine this question.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) for his speech on the bill before us. I agree with his views and on the way he looks upon the situation.
First of all, I think the constituency of Lapointe, as was clearly pointed out by the hon. member for Lafontaine, was named after great public men, two great French Canadians:	Monseigneur Lapointe and Right
Hon. Ernest Lapointe.
As French Canadians we are proud that the name of one of our great Canadians who distinguished himself in public life be preserved forever in our memory through the designation of a county, an electoral constituency in the province of Quebec.
Here may I recall a souvenir going back to the first days of the war. It seems that I can still hear Hon. Ernest Lapointe, one fall evening, speak for Canada in bidding godspeed to those of us who were about to go and defend our liberties outside the country.
It was most edifying to hear Hon. Ernest Lapointe, and I am convinced that it was especially so across French Canada where the people were particularly proud to see the fate of Canada in the hands of such a great man.
There are also many other reasons, as mentioned by the hon. member for Lafontaine, why we should keep the name of Lapointe for the county represented in the house by the sponsor of this bill. I think the hon. member for Lafontaine made a strong case when he suggested that the whole question be fully considered before a decision is reached. There is also the matter of redistribution and I am afraid the county of Lapointe will not be spared.
There again, changes will be made and, for all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member for Lafontaine is perfectly right.
I cannot but wonder in seeing that the present member for Lapointe who usually attaches so much importance to Canadian names and who calls for special attention concerning anything of interest to French Canadians, has thought of suggesting a new name for his riding. He may not have done

Representation Act
so deliberately, but if we agreed to the change, we would be responsible to a certain degree towards our fellow citizens for insinuations to the effect that we do not show enough regard and respect for the memory of a man who has played such an important role in Canadian politics, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. But, personally, I think that changing the name of a riding, as was so well said by the hon. member for Lafontaine, is somewhat like changing the name of an individual. It must be done only if the reasons for such a change are sufficient.
I am sorry to tell the hon. member for Lapointe that I think the reasons he put forward are not important. I like to see the whole people of a riding pay homage to one of our compatriots who gave the best of his life, in saying that they live in the riding named after one of our great Canadians, namely Ernest Lapointe.
Mr. Speaker, I have other reasons to oppose the change of name-reasons that I would rather keep to myself-and I believe that as a representative in this house, I do not have to grant any consideration to the hon. member requesting such a change. For all those reasons, I shall oppose the adoption of this bill.


Mr. John Mullally (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) reads in part:
Paragraph 25 of that part of the schedule to the Representation Act, dealing with the description of the electoral districts in the province of Quebec, which describes the electoral district of Lapointe, is amended by substituting for the word: "Lapointe", the word: "Jonquiere" at the beginning of the said description.
In essence its purpose is to change the name of the riding. Like the other two hon. members who preceded me I regret I have to oppose this request by our good friend from Lapointe.
I should start out by saying that the constituency of Lapointe arose out of a report by a committee that was appointed following the census of 1941 to change the representation of the various constituencies. That committee reported in 1947, and the substance of the report can be summarised in these few words: "The committee recommends a new constituency, known as Lapointe, to be created out of the western half of Chicoutimi."
When the report of that committee was incorporated in the Representation Act of

1952, which the hon. member seeks to amend, it said, speaking of Lapointe:
The Representation Act, 1947, chapter 71, 11 George VI, states:
Lapointe, consisting of the city of Arvida and the towns of Kenogami and Jonquiere, together with that part of the county of Chicoutimi situated west of the western limits of the townships of Gagne, Tremblay, Chicoutimi, Laterrifere, the western part of the townships of Lartigue and Lapointe situated west of the Boisvert river (Cy-riac) together with the whole territory situated north of the townships of Falardeau, Begin, La-brecque, and west of a meridian line passing through the northeast angle of the township of Falardeau.
That is the description of the hon. member's riding.
It might be interesting for the house to know-and this relates to an observation made a few moments ago by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis)-that this is not the first effort to have the name of the hon. member's riding changed.
On January 15, 1957 the then hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard), who was an independent member, introduced Bill C-1I for the purpose of changing the name of the electoral district of Lapointe to that of Jonquiere-Kenogami-Arvida. The bill was read for the first time and did not come up for debate subsequently that session. I believe, Mr. Speaker, this indicates that the suggestion made by the Minister without Portfolio has some merit because, as I understand it, the three largest localities or cities in the hon. member's riding, according to the 1961 census, are Jonquiere, with a population of 28,000 odd, Arvida, with a population of 14,000 odd and Kenogami with a population of 11,000 odd.
I would like very briefly to relate the history of various efforts made during the past 12 years, since the Representation Act of 1952, by members representing different constituencies to have the names of their constituencies changed. From the very quick bit of research I did I find there were 20 bills introduced during those 12 years to have the names of constituencies changed. This is probably not a correct figure because in some instances they were repetitions of previous efforts that were unsuccessful, or which did not come up for debate in the house.
Of these 20 attempts that were made only five were successful. I shall review them quickly and indicate which were successful, but in most cases it will be found that rather than changing the name of a constituency there was merely added another word to make

the name more meaningful, and representative of all the area covered by the riding.
The first effort to have a name changed was in the 1952-53 session when Mr. Studer attempted to have the riding Swift Current changed to Swift Current-Maple Creek. That was not successful but in the following session a successful attempt was made by Mr. Harrison to have the name changed to Swift Current-Maple Creek.
In 1955 the present hon. member for the riding of Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. McWilliam) was successful in having the name Miramichi added to the riding of Northumberland in New Brunswick. In 1957 Mr. Girard, in the instance I have just mentioned, attempted to have the name Lapointe changed to Jonquiere-Chicoutimi. This did not come up for debate and, of course, no change was made. In 1959, Mr. Frechette attempted to have the name Temiscouata changed to Ri-viere-du-Loup-Temiscouata. The bill lapsed. In the same session the hon. member now representing Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) attempted to have the name of the territory of Keewatin-Franklin changed to Northwest Territories. He made a number of attempts before he was finally successful. In 1960 there was an effort by the hon. member for the constituency then known as Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Rapp) to add the word "Tisdale" to the name of the constituency, and the hon. member was unsuccessful. Again in the same session the hon. member for Yukon was unsuccessful in having the name Keewatin-Franklin changed to its present title.
In the session 1960-61 there were at least four attempts to have the names of ridings changed. This time the hon. member for the constituency then known as Humboldt-Melfort was successful in having the name "Tisdale" added to the other two names of his riding. An attempt was made by Mr. Asselin to have the name Montmorency added to Charlevoix. It was unsuccessful. Mr. Valade sought to have the name of his riding, St. Mary's, changed to Camilien Houde. He was unsuccessful.
In 1962, the hon. member for Yukon was successful at last in having the name of the riding of Keewatin-Franklin changed to the Northwest Territories as it is now, and the representative for the constituency then known as Nanaimo, Mr. Matthews, was successful in having the name of that riding changed to Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. The then hon. member representing Inver-ness-Richmond, Mr. MacLellan, attempted to have the name of that riding changed to In-verness-Richmond-Cape Breton West. He was
Representation Act
unsuccessful. The then hon. member for Halifax, Mr. Morris, sought to have the name of that riding changed to Halifax, Dartmouth and County, but he was unsuccessful.
In the more recent sessions of 1962-63 and 1963 the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) attempted to have the name Montmorency added to that of his riding but he was not successful. Now in 1964 we have before us the bill brought up by the hon. member for Lapointe asking the house that the name of the constituency of Lapointe be changed to Jonquiere.
My hon. friend from Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) supported by an hon. member opposite gave proper reasons, in my view, why the name of Lapointe should be retained. Despite what the sponsor of the bill had to say, I believe this riding was named after a great Canadian statesman, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. The hon. member in introducing this bill told us, as far as I can gather, that the main reason for seeking a change was that all the other candidates and party leaders except himself had promised the name would be changed. In view of what happened in that riding during the election I would imagine that the hon. member, who of course was successful, would be superstitious enough to be reluctant to have the name altered in any way.
I am opposing a change in name for three reasons. First, as I said, I believe this riding was named for a great French Canadian, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, a statesman who made an outstanding contribution to the public life of this country. I am sure this view will be shared by those of my colleagues, and others, who come from the province of Quebec and who would, I am sure, be unhappy to see the name of this gentleman taken from its present place. I could speak at length about the contribution made to Canadian public life by Mr. Lapointe but I do not think this is the occasion on which to do so. But I think it would be wrong for us to make any effort to change the name of a riding which was, I am sure, called after this great French Canadian statesman.
My second reason for opposing this bill is the fact that we recently set up a redistribution commission to bring about necessary changes in the constituencies of this country. In these circumstances I think it would be premature to make any effort to change even the name of a constituency. I do not think there is any good reason for the request contained in this bill. From rumours most of us have heard it seems every riding in the

Representation Act
country will undergo at least minor changes and it is almost inconceivable that the riding of Lapointe will be an exception.
My third reason for opposing any change is this: I believe that before we can accept a proposal of this kind, logical reasons must be advanced in its favour. I do not think such reasons have been advanced on this occasion. The hon. member said this change had been promised, but advanced very little by way of further justification. I would point out that any change of this kind is bound to result in some confusion. Difficulties are bound to arise when anything of this nature is done. For these reasons I have to oppose this measure.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with sustained interest to the arguments put forward by one side and the other, in the discussion of the bill now before the house, to have the name of the Lapointe constituency changed to that of Jonquiere.
I have listened to the arguments offered by the hon. member who is the mover of the bill, and in support of his bill, he referred to the numerous representations from various public bodies in favour of the proposed change.
It is quite possible that the people in Lapointe riding are as anxious to have the name of their constituency changed as they are to have their member of parliament replaced. But I do not think too much attention can be given to his suggestions.
The name of Lapointe is of course a short name easy to remember. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be well to strongly advocate simplification, clarity and concision in riding names, so that they may be more easily understood by the people than complicated and endless names like those of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie, St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere, Winnipeg South Centre, Winnipeg North Centre, Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm.
Mr. Speaker, if you ask the man in the street, the layman, in what riding he lives, in what riding he must vote, when the riding is called Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, Okana-gan-Revelstoke, surely there are people who may be very much confused with such complicated designations. That is why I am strongly in favour of a simplification of the names of those ridings, because, after all, those ridings are represented by members and must

be well known by the people because they are in the final analysis in the public interest.
The simpler, the clearer and the easier to understand things are, the more people have a chance to understand them-


John Ross Matheson: Yes.


Auguste Choquette: -as is pointed out by my hon. and distinguished friend from Leeds. Indeed, Leeds is a name which is easy to remember, all the more so because its member is one of the most admirable and most distinguished citizens, and his contribution to the House of Commons is always exceptional.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt the hon. member for Lapointe had serious reasons for submitting his bill. It would, indeed, have added to his personal prestige to be credited with a change of name.
Still, I am surprised to see him insist so much, with such gusto on electoral promises which may have been made by former members of parliament or Liberal candidates for the district of Lapointe.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that so far as electoral promises are concerned, we are doing splendidly. The new redistribution bill has, after all, been passed during the present session and the speakers who have preceded me think highly of it. Redistribution will make possible the geographical adjustments and divisions which are needed; it will make it possible also to change names where it seems imperative to do so.
In my opinion, the bill submitted by the hon. member for Lapointe is only precipitating events because the commissions which will have to hold public hearings and people who will have complaints to make about the limits of the ridings where they vote or which they represent will have an opportunity to state their views fully at those public meetings.
It seems to me, therefore, that trying to precipitate changes is simply going too fast. Of course, it is a characteristic of the Rallie-ment Creditiste always to go farther than necessary-


Mr. Belanger:: Forward.


Auguste Choquette: They ask that family allowances be doubled, that old age pensions be increased, that retirement age be reduced to 65 years of age, that income tax be decreased and that even students be granted salaries. One must not be surprised then when those people make such absurd remarks-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the bill before the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Lotbiniere allow me a question?
I do not know if I misunderstood him. It was not his intention perhaps, but in reading over Hansard, he will realize no doubt that his words did not reflect his thoughts.
Did he mean to say it was impossible to increase family allowances or to reduce the retirement age?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. This question does not deal with the problem before the house at the moment.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, to return to the subject, we are certainly in favour of family allowances-


Some hon. Members:: This is not the subject.


Auguste Choquette: We are in favour of increasing family allowances, but to return to the subject, Mr. Speaker, as a member favouring an increase in family allowances, I will continue to discuss the bill now before us.
Mr. Speaker, the name of Lapointe has great lustre, as the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Mullally) pointed out a few moments ago. This is a name that can also have some semantic value and can be analysed. And when one reads the explanations given in Larousse on these words, one sees that the word "pointe" cannot better describe the member representing the constituency of Lapointe.
For instance, the word "pointe" means-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, I would recall that a while ago you called the hon. member for Lotbiniere to order.
Business of the House
At this moment, does he wish to speak about Ernest Lapointe or about the member for Lapointe?
If he is talking about the present member, he is out of order. If he attributes this definition to Ernest Lapointe, he should say so. However, Mr. Speaker, when one does not know what to say, one should consult the dictionary.
I would like to point out to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that it is six o'clock.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the word "pointe" also means a very small quantity. That gives a very good description of the hon. member for Lapointe: a very small quantity. It also means-


Gilles Grégoire: Small, yes, but it penetrates everywhere. Just like the point of a needle, which seems to be the effect I have had on the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. [Translation]


Auguste Choquette: Venom also penetrates. [Text]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Would the hon. gentleman resume his seat, please. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could put a question to the acting house leader with respect to the business of the house for next week. If by any chance the current debate on the flag is not concluded in the early part of the week, could there be consultations as to the possibility of setting aside a day to deal with the Canada labour code?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will be glad to bring this to the attention of the house leader, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 7, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
Seventh and eighth reports of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Baldwin.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith.
Frank John William Fane: Mr. Speaker, when I had to stop speaking on Friday afternoon because of the advent of five o'clock and the private members' hour, I had reached a point in my address where I was saying that I hoped the Prime Minister would either listen to the pleas of 64 per cent of the people of Canada who have called for a plebiscite or withdraw his motion to introduce a new flag at this time. Since then I have had that request reinforced by the knowledge that people are not now saying "Let us stop talking about the flag issue", but they are saying "Let it come before a plebiscite so it can be taken out of politics and the people of Canada can decide what they want to do about a new flag, the flag that is going to be their flag forever". This will be their flag not just until another parliament and government are elected. This time the flag is for keeps. There will not be any backing up on it after it is approved, whether the people like it or not.
I inquired of the government what was the great compulsion to have this issue settled now. Who is blackmailing the Prime Minister? Why must he pass this blackmail on to the rest of Canada? Why must he pass it on to parliament and demand that we decide an issue that is so divisive? Nothing could be more divisive than to have the flag decided by the members of parliament because, on the whole, they were not given a mandate to decide it.
I also wondered what had happened to the great Liberal party which forms the government. Its members were very vocal, especially when in opposition. Why can't they get up now and make their personal feelings known to their constituents and to Canada as a whole? They just sit back like a bunch of zombies. A few of them are always-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I can appreciate the hon. member's line of argument, but the point at issue is the plebiscite.


Frank John William Fane: Yes, sir, the point at issue is the plebiscite, and I am asking why they do not get up and talk on that point at issue. They act as if their brains have been picked. They act just like bodies moving around not of their own volition. Three of them have spoken already, but where are the rest? I would like to mention names but I shall not. Surely these silent members have decided views. Surely the people they represent have decided views. Why are these members so silent, except when they interrupt from their seats and try to hinder others who do wish to speak on this issue?


Gilles Grégoire: Question.


Frank John William Fane: The little turkey gobblers are at it again.


Mr. Caouelte:: Speak about something you know.


Frank John William Fane: The hon. member says to speak about something I know. I was a farmer and kept turkeys on my farm. Listening to the party on my far left makes me thing that this is killing time for turkeys on the farm.


Gilles Grégoire: You are more interesting when you speak about the farm.


Frank John William Fane: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Lapointe would only talk about what he knows he would be forever silent.


Gilles Grégoire: I know something about a filibuster.


Frank John William Fane: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the people of Canada want to be consulted, and they should be consulted. The Prime Minister and his government should either withdraw this motion or agree to hold a plebiscite at the time of the next general

Canadian Flag
election. The people of Canada could then decide what they wish to do about the flag, whether to keep the present one or accept the one which was chosen by the committee.
By the way, that latter flag is not distinctive. The only distinctive thing about it is the red maple leaf. Why could they not have chosen a green maple leaf or something like that? If they wanted to have a maple leaf, why could it not have been green so as to show the surging life of Canada? Canada has a great future. In time to come Canada will probably be the leader of the nations of the world. Why have a dead maple leaf on our flag? Why not a green one to show the nation's surging life? With that thought I will close my remarks.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: On rising to take part in this debate one cannot but be conscious of the time which has passed in discussion of this matter. One is conscious also of the time which has elapsed by reason of continual delays on the part of the government itself with regard to this whole question.
One of the things which impresses me greatly in this regard is the priority which the Prime Minister has given to this issue during the last several months.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: By his interruption the hon. member opposite reinforces my argument that the government feels there is some great urgency attached to this particular measure. I am very conscious of what has taken place. The Prime Minister eloquently drew our attention to what he called the urgency of this question when it was first introduced, and this sense of urgency on the part of the government and its supporters has not decreased.
We need only look at what has happened during the past few months to realize, however, that the sense of urgency spoken of by the Prime Minister was something he had pulled out of his head with regard to this measure. All the opposition groups in parliament have asked that this issue be given a lesser priority than certain other measures which should be brought before parliament in order that something might be done directly for the benefit of Canadians.
In the last few days the third, fourth and fifth parties have shown-and this is an interesting development-that they are willing to barter away the urgency of the other priorities in order that this particular measure may be disposed of as quickly and as care-

lessly as possible. The Prime Minister as the chief executive officer of the House of Commons has been the architect of a variety of measures of closure with respect to the business of the House of Commons, but no single action has held up the work of the House of Commons to such an extent as his rugged insistence that this measure should be disposed of before others are brought forward.
We can think of the report of the committee itself, which was not altogether the report that I imagine the Prime Minister himself expected but nevertheless a report that brought in a recommendation that rejected the first and foremost premise upon which the Prime Minister presented the new flag design to parliament. I refer, of course, to that often stated objective of his, that we should have here in Canada a flag not to be mistaken for the flag of any other country. In fact, I believe that by this action he has reinforced the reputation he has gained as a rejecter of much that has been brought forward by his own cabinet colleagues throughout the debates this session. I want to refer to them very briefly in order to remind the house of what happened. There was the presentation of the first Gordon budget, the variety of pension plans that were presented to parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: -what took place on the division of the powers of the Minister of Agriculture, and now this latest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the motion was before the house considerable leniency was allowed, as all hon. members know; but we are now on the amendment, and the amendment deals with a plebiscite. It does not seem to me to be in order to deal with matters which may or may not have been dealt with before. It seems to me that hon. members should confine their remarks to the plebiscite, how it should be held, if it should be held, where it should be held and why it should be held.


Edward Nasserden: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy to say that I was just getting along to that part of my remarks. It is not only members of the House of Commons who believe that a plebiscite should be held on this particular question; great numbers of Canadians believe that a plebiscite is the only fair and the only just way in which question can be decided.
This does not only apply to Canadians in the higher age group, but also to young Cana-

dians. Many of these people believe that if they have a part in the choice of a Canadian flag, whatever the final decision of the majority of Canadians they could accept that decision and bring that flag into their hearts and minds and daily living much more closely than any flag imposed by parliament. An article which appeared in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald referred to the fact that teenagers, as other Canadians, deplore the waste of time in parliament on this particular measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: I see the hon. member opposite and one or two others applauding that statement. It was their leader, the Prime Minister of this country, who chose the priorities. He has put this issue above all other issues for consideration by the parliament of Canada. He has done this in the face of an opposition that has said it does not want to pass this measure; and he has chosen this course despite the fact that there is a wide ranging view across this country that denies that this measure should be given the substance and the priority that the Prime Minister of this country has chosen for it at this particular time. Let the hon. member opposite and those others who applauded applaud again, and get up on their feet and tell us why we should pass this measure. The hon. gentleman opposite is one of those who has refused the plea of his Prime Minister to get up and defend this resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Mr. Nasserden. He has refused, as have 95 per cent of the members opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to keep to the matter before the house, which is the question of a plebiscite.


Edward Nasserden: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I hear hon. gentlemen opposite applauding, as does the hon. member for Lot-biniere, who has not contributed anything to this debate. All I can say is that time and time again by these interjections they show their disregard for parliament and for the right of the minority, however small that minority might be, to state its views in the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. I think the hon. member is giving me the practice I need. May I again ask him to keep to the subject which is before the house at this time.
Canadian Flag


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I was only going where those on the other side of the house led me. I was speaking about the plebiscite at the time they led me along this course, and I have no apologies to make to anyone for that. I was recounting when I was interrupted by hon. gentlemen opposite what the teen-agers in Moose Jaw think on the flag question. One of them said:
I feel that a plebiscite should be held to get the opinion of the majority of the Canadian people.
That opinion was expressed by a 17 year old student in grade 12. Another one said:
It would be simpler and much more effective to let the Canadian people themselves vote for the flag they want to represent their country.
Another one said:
It is my opinion that the government conduct a national poll and from this they would be able to obtain a national conviction on the topic.
Another one said:
I think the opinions of the whole of Canada should be considered in the form of a plebiscite in the next general election.
We cannot help but ask ourselves this question. Why has the Prime Minister gambled so frivolously with the time of parliament and with the will of the Canadian people by taking the time that has been asked of parliament for the consideration of a measure for which there is widespread lack of support throughout the country? I have not heard a single person say that he is in favour of the new design submitted to parliament by the committee which was set up by the House of Commons. Search out the newspapers. How few or non-existent are the expressions of the Canadian people endorsing this design which has been brought forward by the members of the committee. Search out the problems which face the people in all parts of the country today and ask yourselves whether the priority placed on the measure is a priority which is justified in view of these problems, which are before the Canadian people.
Therefore for those reasons, while this debate has its deplorable aspects, nevertheless in the face of the tactics employed by the Prime Minister the official opposition has no other course than to take the action we are taking at the present time. The Prime Minister and hon. gentlemen opposite cannot afford to think they can hide behind the rules of parliament even in this debate or in any other debate in the House of Commons. What the government is asking is for the careless acceptance of this proposal, not for a

Canadian Flag
day, not for a year, but for many years and perhaps for all time.
I say to you, sir, and to the members of this house that the Prime Minister must assume the guilt for this travesty he is making of the time of parliament. He has committed his party and the government of Canada to this thoughtless gesture, this careless venture. When we say "Let the people decide", we cannot help but wonder why hon. gentlemen opposite have not taken part in this debate if this matter is as urgent and as justifiable as they say. Surely someone among the members on the other side of the house has some argument to bring forward which could change the minds of those who sit on this side of the house if the case presented is the case the government say it is. And if it is not the kind of case they say it is, then why give it the priority in this house that it has been given?


Maurice John Moreau: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edward Nasserden: As soon as I have concluded my remarks. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman this question. Why has he failed to come to the aid of his Prime Minister in this debate?


An hon. Member:: He doesn't need it.


Edward Nasserden: Why has he failed to place upon the record his reasons for taking the course he will undoubtedly take when the vote eventually comes?


Maurice John Moreau: Would you like an answer?


Edward Nasserden: Just as soon as I have completed my remarks we will be glad to hear from the hon. member for York-Scarborough. With regard to the holding of a plebiscite on a new flag, I make no secret of the fact that I am not one of those who think a plebiscite is the last word in the deciding of this particular issue. But when one considers how the matter was brought before parliament initially, what other course could a responsible opposition employ to bring before parliament the wishes of vast numbers of Canadians? What other course is open to parliament, not only to the opposition but to the government itself, to obtain a true expression of what Canadians want in regard to the choice of a national flag?
The Prime Minister said at the beginning of the debate that one of the reasons for the priority given this matter was what was taking place in the province of Quebec. He brought in the whole picture of national unity.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Edward Nasserden: He referred to the whole question of national unity and what this measure might do to meet the urgency of that particular problem. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are other things the government could do not only in that old province of Quebec but in other areas of Canada where attention is needed that would be of far greater moment than the measure now before us. I want to say also that if the Prime Minister and the government think that by the passage of this measure they can possibly slough off the electorate of the province of Quebec with the thought that they have done something for them, when the real and major issues at stake in that province have been left untouched, then I think they are acting most unwisely. They are acting in a way that is detrimental to the future of the nation and to national unity itself.
This flag that we are asked to endorse, which we on this side of the house say should be put before the Canadian people in a plebiscite along with other designs; this measure that the Prime Minister wants to push through parliament, could well become the symbol of discontent more than any other flag Canadians have ever had in the past if little or nothing is done to meet the everyday problems that face Canadians not only in the province of Quebec but in the other provinces as well. When we consider that the Prime Minister has already told the people of Canada that he is making the gesture of giving them a flag, while at the same time he brings before parliament another measure enabling him to say that the union jack will continue to fly to represent our connection with the commonwealth, what a hollow gesture this is. It is one of the shallowest manoeuvres ever to be undertaken in Canadian history.
I am surprised that so few from the government benches have spoken in this debate. Surely some of them must have some opinions to express on the advisability or otherwise of holding a plebiscite. I can think of many members across the way who must have opinions in this regard. I think of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty), I think of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau), who interrupts from time to time. I think of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Mullally), the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. O'Keefe), the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Temple), the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh), who I believe made an apology the other day; the

hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin). I think of some of those on the front benches, and I ask myself what manner of government we have in Canada today whose front bench members can remain so silent on a question so near and dear to the problem of national unity.
Why is there this silence? Why is the Prime Minister not in his place in the house during the greater part of this debate?


Maurice John Moreau: Why is your leader not here?


An hon. Member:: A nice gesture on your part when a man is sick in bed.


Edward Nasserden: I do not say the Prime Minister should be here all through the debate, but if this is the greatest thing to come before this session of parliament, if this is the most important matter that will come before this session of parliament, surely the Prime Minister should take some time to listen to the debate on this measure and try to get something of the atmosphere in which it is being carried on.
We have not had that kind of interest on the part of the Prime Minister with regard to this important matter and, Mr. Speaker, it should be of interest to him to answer the call for a plebiscite. After all, the design submitted by the committee is not the design he submitted to parliament. As soon as one thinks of that, of course, one thinks of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson). I recall his remarks earlier in this debate. The three maple leaves flag had inspired him. There was something about it that was truly Canadian. It would carry Canadians forward to a greater measure of national unity.


John Ross Matheson: Will the hon. member admit it is the royal badge of Canada?


Edward Nasserden: Yet in the special committee the hon. gentleman voted against it, as did all his colleagues on that committee. All the Liberal members of that committee voted against the design that had been brought forward by their own Prime Minister, a design for which the hon. member for Leeds was supposed to be responsible. What was the situation when that design was presented to parliament and throughout the six weeks when we debated it while they sneered? Each one of them privately and publicly, though not in the House of Commons, was issuing statements to his electors and to the newspapers and radio stations in his riding about what a great design parliament had before it, and was saying that parlia-
Canadian Flag
ment should accept it with speed for otherwise great damage would be done to national unity. Yet they went into a committee of the House of Commons and destroyed that design. Now they tell us that they have come up with a design that will enhance national unity. This is the question that Canadians in all parts of the country-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, that is not the question. The question that is before the house at the moment is whether this matter should be referred back to the flag committee for a recommendation that there be a referendum. I submit, sir, on all the authorities that have already been cited during this lengthy debate, and particularly the dicta from May, that we do not have a right now to anticipate a point that is clearly not in order, and that is the merits of a particular flag which will be debated after this matter of the referendum has been decided upon.
At this time I submit that the hon. member has a right to discuss only the referral back to the committee for a recommendation on a referendum. The merits of a particular design is a subject on which he can talk at full length, without any limitation of debate, on the main motion, that is the motion to concur in the sixth report of the committee which is before the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: While you are considering the point raised by the hon. member for Leeds, Mr. Speaker, will you take into account the fact that when the hon. member for Leeds was speaking on the amendment he never once mentioned the question of a plebiscite. He spent a great deal of his time talking about the design of a flag. I do not believe it is fitting that the hon. member for Leeds should be the one to raise a point of order at this time when a member on this side of the house is talking, because he himself was not within the rules for one minute during the course of his remarks on that day. If the ruling is that only the plebiscite must be mentioned, you might also take into consideration that this is not a debate in the fashion of Gertrude Stein where you say a rose is a rose is a rose, or where we must be limited to saying a plebiscite is a plebiscite is a plebiscite. This would make nonsense out of the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I realize it is difficult to keep saying a rose is a rose or a plebiscite is a plebiscite. However, I do

Canadian Flag
believe there is enough in the amendment before the house at this time for the hon. member to keep to the point that is under study. It has been drawn to his attention on several occasions, and I know he does not want to make the task of the Acting Speaker any more difficult than it is, so he will endeavour to keep to the point.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have never left the point. The hon. member for Leeds and the shilly-shallying shell tactics of those on the government benches, who yesterday wanted the three leaf flag and today want a one leaf flag, provide the best argument that can be put forward for Canadians to have a plebiscite on this important matter. The government cannot make up its mind, and this is plain to see. Government members would take any design so long as it is not the Canadian red ensign. This is one of the facts that have emerged out of this debate. The hon. member for Leeds has been most guilty in that regard. I believe that is the reason he raised the point of order in the way he did. He feels the burden of his guilt.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. The guilt of the hon. member for Leeds does not excuse the hon. member for being out of order. May I draw to his attention again, for the fifth time-I do not know what rule applies-that he should not be called to order too often. May I ask him to co-operate with the Chair and keep to the subject under study.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I may say that perhaps the last word or two were out of order, but I was only led along that path by the things that were said from the opposite side of the house. There should be some fairness in this debate right across the line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: Somebody says "Oh, oh". If hon. gentlemen opposite have something to say, let them get up and say it. They say these things while they are seated, and they do not get on the record.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: You were attacking the Chair.


Edward Nasserden: No one was attacking the Chair. If I may return to the matter under discussion, that is whether or not a plebiscite should be held, I want to emphasize what I just said; that the statement made by the hon. member for Leeds, reinforced by members of the flag committee from the Liberal party, reinforced by the decision made about
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif).]
the design that was presented to parliament, represent the best arguments for a plebiscite that any one could wish to have.
However, there is a further argument, and that is the silent, unnamed members of the house who are either afraid or careless of presenting their views on this question of a plebiscite, and they must be considered when we are dealing with this whole problem. When members across the way come to us and tell us they are glad we are requesting a plebiscite on this question-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Only one.


Edward Nasserden: I can say this, it certainly was not you who asked for a plebiscite on this question. I would not be proud about that, either, if I were the hon. gentleman.
Today we are considering whether or not there should be a plebiscite on an important matter such as this. We were told at the beginning of the debate by the Prime Minister himself that this was vital to national unity. If it is vital to national unity, and a great portion of the Canadian people are not in accord with what is being done, then that particular aspect of this situation should be taken into consideration, whether those people live in one part of the country or in another part of the country. As we hear the interjections that come across the floor, we wonder why hon. members do not make speeches. We wonder why 90 per cent of hon. members opposite have failed to answer the call to national unity uttered by their leader, the Prime Minister, during the discussion of this measure. When approximately 60 per cent of the Canadian people are in favour of a plebiscite on this important question, why is it that the Prime Minister would destroy his own party, destroy this parliament and the image of parliament as well, on a question such as this? The hon. gentleman laughs, but as time goes on that laugh will change to something else just as it did during the debate a week ago when charges were made and many hon. members laughed at them.
We hear a great deal about trying to get on with the business of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. gentleman opposite says this is the business of parliament. I was glad to hear that interjection.


Raymond Rock: Who said that?


Edward Nasserden: There were so many speaking I could not tell which one said it, but someone opposite did. This is the business of parliament, and that is what we on this

side say. It is the responsibility of members to make sure that this government does not take action that in the final analysis might do more to hurt Canadian unity than to enhance it. After all, that is the purpose for which the measure was brought before parliament, as stated by no less a person than the Prime Minister.
When we consider whether or not we should hold a plebiscite, I cannot help but look at the empty seat of the Prime Minister and wonder why he is not in that seat during the greater part of this debate.


Raymond Rock: What about your own leader?


Edward Nasserden: My own leader, at the present time, happens to be sick in bed. The hon. gentleman knows that, but he still refers to it because he thought I would not know about it.


Raymond Rock: I just mentioned the fact that your leader is not here either.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Oh, get lost.


Edward Nasserden: Well, we have the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) here. Why doesn't he tell us why we should not have a plebiscite? Is he one of those who hope he is going to become a judge, or sit in the Senate; or does he want to take a trip somewhere?


John James Greene: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, any time I want to speak in the house I can assure the hon. member I do not need any help, aid, or improvisation from him; and when I do speak I shall have a little more to say than he has to say, and I shall not do any filibustering or hold up the business of the house when I am speaking.


Edward Nasserden: Well, I will say this for the hon. gentleman-


Raymond Rock: He is honest.


Edward Nasserden: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker, but that does not mean I would not agree with it. The hon. gentleman of course, had ambitions in another place. He was one of those who were frustrated here-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: They shake their heads, Mr. Speaker, and I will take their word for it, but I know one of them opposite was frustrated, as was related in one of the leading newspapers.


John James Greene: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has stated I am frustrated. I would point out the only frustra-
Canadian Flag
tion I feel is at the prostitution of parliament being carried on in this filibuster by hon. gentlemen opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. Both hon. gentlemen who have spoken are out of order. There is nothing in the amendment which mentions frustration on either side of the house. I am afraid if this keeps up on both sides of the house the only frustration that will result will be the frustration of the Acting Speaker. May I once again ask the hon. member for Rosthern not to make my task any more difficult, and may I ask those on the opposite side who keep shouting "order" to give me the privilege of calling somebody to order when he is out of order.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: On that point-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: It has
been decided that point is out of order. It is out of order for you as well as for me, because it has nothing to do with the subamendment.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: But generalizing, Mr. Speaker, it has been said there is frustration in the house. There certainly is.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I want to say I am frustrated too. The government does not want to submit this issue to a plebiscite. I am not going into what the hon. gentleman opposite said because Your Honour has stated the matter is disposed of, and we want you to have a happy time in the chair today.
All I will do is put on the record the reasons for which I think a plebiscite should be held. I only regret hon. members opposite do not want me to do that. At least this is the only conclusion I can draw from these interruptions. The decision by parliament to designate a Canadian flag is one of the most important decisions parliament could ever take. There are thousands of Canadians who think parliament has spent too much time on this issue-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: Hon. gentlemen opposite are applauding.


Gilles Grégoire: We are too.


Edward Nasserden: And the hon. gentleman in the far corner wants to get honourable mention, but really and truly I cannot think of anything good to say about him today in that regard.

Canadian Flag


Gilles Grégoire: You never have anything very good to say.


Edward Nasserden: I am not going to be drawn into that, Mr. Speaker. There are many reasons why Canadians in all parts of the country should speak out on the question of the flag they want. If we are to accept the views that have been expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite-and they have been few in number-Canada has not had a flag, and this procedure we are engaged in is the adoption of a new flag. Then surely it is of sufficient importance that Canadians, great and small, in every part of the country should be given an opportunity to choose from a variety of recommendations.
It may be said that this would divide Canada, but in all sincerity I say it could not divide Canada any worse than Canada is divided today by the divisive practice employed by the government and the Prime Minister in pushing this matter through parliament. If the opposition has a primary job in parliament it is to preserve the rights of minorities, a task which is not easy on a question such as this.
When we think of the number of Canadians who are growing tired of the time wasted in parliament, because of a Prime Minister who has given such priority to this matter, we cannot help but wonder why he is not in his place today. We cannot help but wonder why he does not give some attention to the requests that have been made. When I say that I take nothing away from him or his image because I know at times he has to be other places, but surely we could see him some time during the course of this debate. This is one of the questions which go unanswered day after day, and it is one I find most disconcerting when I think of the image of parliament and of the slogan used by hon. gentlemen opposite, "Let's get on with the business of parliament." If the Prime Minister really felt this matter warranted such priority he should be in the house to give it proper attention.
Under normal circumstances I do not believe a plebiscite would be the best course to take in a matter such as this, but in view of all that has happened, in view of the way this issue was introduced and of what has taken place since then, I think a plebiscite is the only recourse available to us in order to preserve some of the unity that we hold dear.
I regret that apparently the Prime Minister

and hon. members opposite do not hold that view.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gilles Grégoire: How many speeches has he made on this subject?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there is a question from an hon. member who has not participated in the flag debate.


Gilles Grégoire: I will vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall answer him immediately. This is the third time for me to speak in the debate on the flag.


Gilles Grégoire: A hat trick.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have the courage of my convictions in this matter. I consider this to be a serious matter, and I think members of this house should participate in the debate and advance arguments either for or against.


Gilles Grégoire: I have heard them all.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for
Lapointe spends his time interrupting and making a mockery of the House of Commons.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I waited before rising
because I thought some members from the Liberal party would rise to take part in this debate. We have heard two members of the Liberal party advance reasons why they propose a new flag should be adopted. The hon. member for Leeds, who was the progenitor of the three maple leaf flag with the blue borders and the hon. member for Terrebonne, who was on the committee, gave us the benefit of their views on this subject. They were the only members of the Liberal party who advanced any reasons for the adoption of the proposed flag, and of those two only the hon. member for Terrebonne said anything about whether or not a plebiscite should be held. We heard from the ranks of the Liberal party a very profound and courageous speech by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), a real contribution to a debate of an extremely serious character.
Now, I thought there would be some support from the Liberal party for the proposal now before the house. It makes for a debate when opposing views are presented in this cham-

ber. That is the purpose of debating. We are putting forward our case; the other side should be putting forward their case, if they have one. It makes it very difficult when members on the government side do not enter into the debate. Obviously they have no interest in this matter; they are fainthearted with regard to the flag now proposed, or else they hesitate to put on the sackcloth and ashes and tell us they were all wrong six months ago when they were talking about the three maple leaf flag with the blue border.
I intend in the course of this debate to put forward two reasons why this matter should be referred to the people. But I propose, in leading up to those reasons, to deal with matters which have been mentioned by the hon. member for Leeds and the hon. member for Villeneuve, because those gentlemen have presented a point of view to which I am opposed, and in the course of this debate I think I am justified in drawing attention to their remarks and giving an answer to them. I also hope to deal with other matters, all leading up to the two main points I intend to make during the course of this debate. I appreciate the nature of the ground rules which have been staked out. All I ask is the same privilege that was extended to the hon. member for Leeds, the hon. member for Terrebonne, the hon. member for Villeneuve and various hon. members who touched on other matters rather than the question of a plebiscite; and I hope I shall not be asked to use the word "plebiscite" in every other sentence.
In the speech he made to the house the hon. member for Leeds once again brought us information which I consider to be inaccurate. I refer to his interpretation of the proclamation of 1921, which he uses as a basis for advocating the adoption of the proposed flag now before us, the flag with the white centre and red borders having a red maple leaf superimposed in the centre, as recommended by the committee. I dealt with this subject when I was speaking in August, but apparently I did not convince the hon. member for Leeds, who has repeated in this house the argument he used on that occasion. Consequently I must again draw the attention of the house to the fact that I believe the hon. member for Leeds and others, including the hon. member for Danforth, have been misled by the interpretation given to the royal proclamation of 1921.
They have stated here that the national colours are red and white, and I say they have no evidence that such national colours were 20220-688
Canadian Flag
ever established. I said in August and I say again now that the committee which drew up the proclamation of 1921 and delivered it to the government of that day said nothing in its brochure, which was published later, about the establishment of national colours. No reference was made to them in subsequent brochures until the one published in March of this year under the present Liberal government. The others said nothing about Canada's national colours being red and white. I say the information supplied to us to the contrary is misinformation and should be rejected.
My second point is this, and I reiterate it because of the statements which have been made with regard to the coats of arms as determined in 1921. The only maple leaf which was coloured in red was the maple leaf resting in the paw of the hon. and it was put there for the express purpose of commemorating Canada's sacrifice in the first world war. It represented Canada's losses in that war; 60,000 Canadian young men lost their lives in that struggle. That is why the red maple leaf was incorporated in the coat of arms. I argued in August, and I do again, that having used a red maple leaf for this purpose it is disgraceful to abandon it now and use it for some other purpose, as has been done in the revised coat of arms and as is being done in this proposed new flag. The red maple leaf on the coat of arms represents the sacrifice of the first world war. Is this Liberal government going to wipe that out and forget about it? I say, no.


An hon. Member:: Put it on the flag.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And it should not appear on the flag of Canada, a red maple leaf. We should go back to what it was originally, a green maple leaf as was determined in the proclamation of 1921; because in that proclamation the red maple leaf was mentioned and given its proper heraldic term, gules, and the three maple leaves were given their term "proper" which means "in their natural state" which means green.
The coat of arms was revised a few years later. I say it was improperly revised, and that our government was misled by that revision and that a correction should be made. I say that the red maple leaf should not be used on a flag of Canada; that the red maple leaf represents the blood sacrifice of Canadians in the first world war, and it should be retained for that purpose. If the Liberal party intend to wipe that out, let them conduct another revision of the Canadian coat

Canadian Flag
of arms from which this flag is being drawn -the references are always to that. If this message could only get across to the people of Canada-and this is why we suggest referring this question to the people of Canada-* we believe they would reject the proposed new flag because it improperly uses the red maple leaf.
This committee was set up after a rather lengthy debate in the House of Commons in the expectation that some solution would be found, through the work of the committee, that would be acceptable to the house, to parliament and to the people of Canada. I commend the committee for its diligent work. I regret to say that the committee failed in its task because it did not come up with a solution that is satisfactory. I have given one reason why their solution is unsatisfactory. We had hoped that some compromise might be effected during the work of that committee. The stand taken by our party in the debate in August and September was very largely this. We wished to retain the Canadian red ensign, modified, if you like, in the fly, replacing the coat of arms with the maple leaf, adding the fleur-de-lis and recognizing the history and traditions of our country, which would constitute a distinctive and acceptable Canadian flag.
When the committee met I entertained some hope-not very much-that the committee would bring forward a design somewhat along that line. I had hoped that the committee would start with the design approved by the parliamentary committee of 1946, which voted 23 to 1 for a modified Canadian red ensign, with the shield removed and a golden maple leaf placed in the fly. I thought the committee, starting from that point, would perhaps add the fleur-de-lis; because I have always thought-and this is where I have been mistaken, as I have discovered from the debate in the house during August, September and this month-that the fleur-de-lis should have more prominence on our flag than it has just in the coat of arms. I will point out where I have been mistaken in that belief as I proceed with what I have to say.
The committee, which started off with great expectations, ended in failure; and it ended in failure because the Liberal members on that committee did not apparently deal with anything in the nature of a compromise in which our history and traditions would be recognized, because they rejected any reference to our past and rejected the flag which was brought in with the blare of trumpets last May by the Prime Minister. They threw

out the three maple leaf flag with the blue borders and substituted the white flag with a red maple leaf and red borders.
Where was the compromise? There was no meeting of minds with regard to the position put forward by the Conservative party, and we represent quite a number of people in Canada; it runs into millions. Why could there not be a meeting of minds? We have had pointed out to us that the Conservative members on that committee endeavoured to bring about a compromise by superimposing on the red and white flag the union jack in one corner and the fleur-de-lis in the other. Quite frankly I did not think that was a very attractive design, but it was a sincere effort to bring together opposing points of view. But the committee rejected that design and insisted on bringing before us a new design, falsely called a design based on Canada's alleged national colours.


John Ross Matheson: Nonsense.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, a reference to the people of Canada becomes more urgent than ever. We went through a debate in which opposing points of view were presented; the committee sat for a lengthy period-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -it rejected the personal choice of the Prime Minister and brought in a flag which is not a compromise solution. Surely under these circumstances a reference to the people of Canada is essential. I believe that had a suitable compromise been produced, giving recognition to the history and traditions of this country as we have maintained right from the very first, and with greater emphasis placed on the maple leaf- which to my mind is acceptable as a symbol of Canada, but not as a flag-which the hon. member for Leeds and others have talked about so frequently, it would have been acceptable. Here were the two points of view, and surely the committee could have arrived at a solution, not necessarily acceptable to individuals here and there but something that would assist parliament to come to a decision with regard to this very important matter.
I am very disturbed, sir, that during the course of this debate we have not heard the position of the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet. They are non-participants; they do not take part in debates in the House of Commons.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: They are writing codes of ethics, which are very important.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They leave it to other members of their party. We are interested, and I am sure the people generally are interested, in knowing what is the attitude of the Prime Minister. We know the attitude of the member for Leeds; he said just the other day that the proposed flag, and I quote his words:
-meets all the tests for a distinguished flag. It is a flag of dignity and grace, worthy of a great sovereign nation.
He said substantially the same things last summer with regard to the flag which he was then putting before us.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: He will say whatever he is told to say.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the position of the Prime Minister? Because we have not heard the point of view of the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, I say that a reference to the people is essential. Let the people know where the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal party, stands. Are they to accept what he said last May and June with regard to a flag? The present proposed flag is not the one he was talking about last June. With regard to what he said on June 15-which was the last time he participated in a debate in this house except for comments on rules and procedure -do the things he said six months ago hold true today? There should be some leadership given in this country, and that leadership should come from the Prime Minister; and he should be supported by members of his cabinet, if they are confiding in each other these days. On June 15 the Prime Minister said:
-I believe that a national flag of the kind described in this resolution-
That was the three maple leaf flag with the blue borders:
-that will be exclusively Canadian, will bring us closer together; give us a greater purpose of national identity and unity.
Then in the same speech he went on to say:
I know, also, that a flag issue is bound to raise strong and deep and genuine emotions.
He went on to point out-and these are his own words as reported at page 4321 of Hansard:
In my view, the time has come for a further and a final change.
The further and final change in June was to a three maple leaf flag with blue borders.
Now where are we? If you have a final change in June-the personal choice of the
20220-688J
Canadian Flag
Prime Minister-and you reach a situation in November, six months later, where the Liberal party proposes another flag, where is the final change and what is the position of the Prime Minister? We need to know the Prime Minister's position on this matter, and then having got that position let us refer the matter to the people of Canada for a decision. The Prime Minister's final change, according to his own words, is that:
-it should be based on three red maple leaves because that is our formal and historic emblematic link with our Canadian past.
We are now down to one red maple leaf. Is that our formal and historic emblematic link? I should like an explanation of that remark. I should like to know what the Prime Minister says about the flag now proposed. He said of the other one that because its design had such a history and went with the blue sea to sea border, it made a striking and beautiful flag. What has happened now to the sea to sea border? Have we abolished the Atlantic and the Pacific? He said at the time that the single maple leaf has not the same historical and heraldic significance. These are indeed conflicting points of view, and I should like to know where the Prime Minister stands today. Let him guide parliament. Let him guide the people of this country. If he is now prepared to reject the three maple leaf design let him say so publicly, and let him tell us his reasons.
He also said with regard to the resolution on the order paper providing for the three maple leaf flag with the blue borders that that resolution did indeed mark a break with the past. Strangely enough, in saying that it made a break with the past he was also telling us that the proposed flag of that day had great historical significance derived from the past. So how do you break with the past and yet retain the historical significance derived from the past? I should like an explanation of that, and I should like the Prime Minister to tell us whether the present proposed flag represents a break with the past or whether it is founded on a historical link with the past.
I have expressed my regret, sir, that we have not heard from the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet. They have become silent. We have heard from only two members of the Liberal party with regard to the present flag. We heard from the leader of the Creditiste party when he spoke in this house on December 1, at which time he was applauded by members of the Liberal party. I was here and listened to his speech, and I saw the approval which came from the gov-

Canadian Flag
ernment side. Therefore I would have to assume that what he said then represented the views of the Liberal party. Nobody on that side of the house has criticized him for what he said on that occasion; therefore I would say they must agree with his views. Last June he said that he did not feel the flag issue could strengthen national unity in Canada, and I do not recall even then that the members of the Liberal party found fault with his speech on that occasion. He told us on December 1, as reported at page 10742 of Hansard:
I have said, on several occasions, that the design of the flag is of little concern to me.
He cares not what the flag is. He went on to say:
-if the Canadian symbol, now represented by the maple leaf on the flag proposed by the committee which considered this question, is not satisfactory, then let us remove the maple leaf and put a beaver, or a sheaf of wheat, or indeed anything else-
Now, Mr. Speaker, what stage are we at with regard to the Creditiste party? The leader of that party, supported by his own members and applauded by the Liberals, says he is not concerned-


John James Greene: I rise on a point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -with the nature of the flag at all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. An hon. member is rising on a point of order.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman has a very hard time discerning just what is going on in this house, but with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the subject matter of the debate is supposed to be the holding of a plebiscite, and for the information of the hon. gentleman that is the topic on which he is supposed to be speaking. With respect, I would ask that Your Honour keep the hon. gentleman in order, if he has it within himself to speak within the rules of the house, and not permit him continuously to abuse the rules.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I can now understand very clearly why the hon. member for Renfrew South was not elected as leader of the provincial Liberal party. He lacks the intelligence to understand a sound argument.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre now speaking to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Renfrew South?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I certainly am, Mr. Speaker, if you think it was a point of order. I suggest I am strictly in order, because I am developing the thesis that there are two main reasons why this issue should be determined by the Canadian people and not by this House of Commons. I want the same privilege that is afforded every other hon. member of the house to develop my thesis without interruptions such as that from the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will recognize that another hon. member has the right to raise a point of order and that the Chair should be allowed to rule on the point of order.


Edward Nasserden: May I just speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am wondering
whether anything can be served by having a long discussion of the point of order. The Chair recognizes what are the ground rules of the debate, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre mentioned at the start of his remarks, which are that the debate is supposed to deal with an amendment now before the house. In beginning his remarks the hon. member did say that he intended to lead to the question of a plebiscite, and I assume that is what he is doing now. I did have some doubt whether his reference to the position of the Creditiste party was really relevant to this particular point, but in any event I take it that he is leading to the question of a plebiscite and I should like to hear the continuation of his speech.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am not only leading up to it but I have been on the subject all along. I was pointing out that the position of the Creditistes is certainly important for the very simple reason that that party has been supporting the government all during the present session, and the statement-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that must be denied. If we look at the record of all the votes taken in the house since the beginning of the session we will see that those supporting the government are the Conservative party, or that their members were absent during votes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That is a point of debate.


Gilles Grégoire: They used to be out of the house when there was a vote.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it is a rather strange thing when the leader of the Cre-ditiste party will say in the house in the flag debate that the design of the flag, to use his own words, "is of little concern to me". Then he went on to say, as found on page 10742 of Hansard:
However, I do not oppose the adoption of another design provided it is Canadian-
He also said:
... let us remove the maple leaf and put a beaver, or a sheaf of wheat, or indeed anything else-
No member of the Liberal party objected to that statement, and it is customary in this house in a proper debate for people to answer arguments of which they do not approve. I say, sir, that in view of the fact that the Creditistes have taken this stand it is incumbent upon us to draw this to the attention of the people of Canada, because I believe that people who are going to say they care nothing about our national flag, that they do not care what is on it-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Gordon Minto Churchill: -who will say "or indeed anything else"-


Gilles Grégoire: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) are dishonest, for we have never said that we were not interested in the flag, but rather that, regardless of what flag is proposed, provided it is Canadian and distinctive, we will accept it in a spirit of co-operation with all the citizens of our country. In this regard, the hon. member's remarks are dishonest, for we have never spoken those words.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe there is a question of privilege in what has been raised by the hon. member for Lapointe. It is rather a point of debate. If he thinks that the position of one of his members or of himself is being misrepresented by another hon. member, he has an opportunity later in the debate to set things straight if he believes this should be done.
Canadian Flag


Gilles Grégoire: We have to put it on record that he is dishonest, and he should know it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you have joined with me in encouraging the hon. member for Lapointe to enter the debate-


Mr. Mandziuk:: He will never do it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and show his courage and his honesty. He accused me of being dishonest, but I will accept the fact he is honest and let him enter the debate and display that honesty to the rest of us. I do not overlook the fact that the Creditiste party has a following in this country, and I have heard from their leader that he has support not only in his own province but elsewhere throughout Canada. But my argument is that when a party in this house say they do not care what the flag is, that they do not care what is on the flag, the people of Canada should be aware of that fact. I say that for this reason. Suppose this issue came to a vote in the House of Commons and the votes of the Creditiste members determined the issue. These are the people who would determine for all Canada what the flag would be-


Gilles Grégoire: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and according to their argument it might not have on it a red maple leaf or a green maple leaf. It might not have on it a beaver or a sheaf of wheat. Through the mouth of their leader they say "or indeed anything else". But what would it have on it?


Gilles Grégoire: Something Canadian, not British.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This verges almost on subversive tactics, Mr. Speaker, the destruction of things that are treasured by Canadians. I say now, Mr. Speaker, that during the course of the debate last summer and from the action of the committee I have discovered that no compromise on the issue of the flag is possible in the present House of Commons, and that is why the issue should be referred to the people. We have had this clearly demonstrated by the failure of the committee. After all its meetings the committee failed to come up with a compromise. I said earlier that I was under the impression months ago that a suitable compromise would be the addition of the maple leaf and the fleur-de-lis in prominence on the Canadian red ensign. I was wrong.
1C888

Canadian Flag


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question? What would the fleur-de-lis represent on that flag?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the fleur-de-lis would represent on that flag what it represents on the provincial flag of the province of Quebec. It would represent the traditions of a great race, and I have been an admirer of the French race.


Gilles Grégoire: We can laugh at that. That is a joke.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I considered that the fleur-de-lis would be representative of the history and traditions of the French race in Canada.


John James Greene: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If Mr. Speaker will allow me additional time.


Gilles Grégoire: We want something Canadian.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is allowing a question by the hon. member for Renfrew South.


John James Greene: Would the hon. member tell us whether, in making the statement that the fleur-de-lis would represent Quebec adequately on the flag, he is speaking for any organization in Quebec or whether there has been any such request by any popular organization in Quebec, including his own party; or whether this is just his own idea?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will answer the question. I regret that the hon. member is unable to follow an argument very closely. I said it had been my opinion several months ago that the fleur-de-lis would represent French Canada on our flag but I have found out during the course of the debate and as a result of the proceedings of the committee that I was wrong. That is why I say the people of Canada need to know the situation, because hundreds of people have written to me and friends have spoken to me who have been in favour of a compromise, and in their opinion it was always that the Canadian red ensign should be modified in order to give greater recognition to the French founders of this country.


Gilles Grégoire: Did you ask the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer)?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I say we have been wrong on this point and those people who are still writing to me about a compromise are unaware of the circumstances. They are unaware that we have been told in the house

by members of the Liberal party, by members of our own party and by members of the Creditiste party that the fleur-de-lis would be unacceptable as a compromise symbol. This is a grave disappointment to me. I have been under a misapprehension all these years in that regard. In talking about maintaining the history and traditions of the two founding races of this country I had always thought that these symbols would be satisfactory for that purpose.
I say that no compromise is now possible because of the facts that have been brought out in debate in the house and by the work of the committee. That being the case, the people of Canada should be made aware of the situation. Therefore the most suitable thing to do in respect of the whole flag problem would be to put it in abeyance for a very considerable time until there is an opportunity for greater knowledge of the facts right across the country. The second point I want to make, in conclusion-


Gilles Grégoire: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I will conclude and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) can get up and make a speech. The other day the hon. member was handing out appropriate insignia to the various members who participated in the debate. I should like to confer upon him the order of the eviscerated chicken unless he gets up and makes his speech on this flag issue.
Now, sir, I want to say this, that in light of the attitude taken by the Liberal party, the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) six months ago, by the member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) and others, and the actions of the Liberals on the committee, the policy of the Liberal party throughout the whole course of this thing has been the destruction of the Canadian red ensign. I hope the people of Canada realize this. The Liberal party will take anything except the Canadian red ensign, anything except something on our flag to represent our history and our traditions. What other conclusion can be arrived at than that the Liberal party aims at the destruction of the red ensign? Six months ago the hon. member for Leeds loved the three maple leaf flag with the blue border. Now he loves the one with the white and red on it. Where does the Prime Minister stand on this question? We have not heard. I say, sir, that the reason this whole matter should be referred to the people by way of plebiscite is the action of the Liberal party. We have now found out what they want to do, clearly

and distinctly, through the work of the committee plus their inactivity in this debate, plus statements they have made in the past. They want to destroy the Canadian red ensign and they care not what is substituted in its place.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; the hon. member's time expired a few minutes ago.


An hon. Member:: Let the member for Leeds make his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions can be asked of the hon. member who just resumed his seat only with the consent of the house, because his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask the hon. member these two question? First, does he not agree that the three maple leaves on one stem was, in fact, the Canadian emblem on every Canadian red ensign since 1868? Second, is it not a fact that the words in the royal proclamation-
And upon a royal helmet mantled argent doubled gules the crest, that is to say, on a wreath of the colours argent and gules-
-do, in fact, determine the colours of Canada to be red and white?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In answer to the first question, I may say that I am aware of the fact the three maple leaf design has been on the Canadian flag, and it should have remained there in the colour green. I accept it as a symbol of Canada and I have never objected to it as a symbol of Canada. I do not believe it should ever be made the main part of a Canadian flag.
In so far as the second question is concerned the hon. member, drawing from his knowledge of heraldry-perhaps I can assist him in this-has reached the conclusion that because the mantle under the helmet is described as being red and white, that this constitutes the national colours of Canada. I say there is no authority for that statement. I suggest to him that he produce the evidence from the books of heraldry to show that they constitute the national colours. They may constitute the colours of the monarch whose helmet is there, but not necessarily the colours of this country. If he will examine the coat of arms for Australia and the coat of arms for New Zealand, he will see that there is no mention of national colours in their coats of arms. As I pointed out earlier
Canadian Flag
today, the committee that sat on this problem in 1921, and to whom the hon. member paid tribute, as I do, said nothing in their descriptive booklet with regard to Canada's determining at that time that her national colours would be red and white. I said further that having used the red maple leaf for the sacrifice of Canadians in the first world war it could then not be used as a Canadian flag, and therefore would be rejected as a national colour.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have risen to participate in this debate. If there are those who do not wish to participate in it, that is their privilege. I have spoken now at least four times, but only twice in this year. The other occasions on which I spoke were January 21, 1962 and November 21, 1962 which, by a peculiar coincidence was just 41 years after the date on which King George V is purported to have wanted to incorporate, as the Canadian flag, the three maple leaf design, which has been now abandoned. The three maple leaf design certainly had some merit. I suppose most of the designs which came before the flag committee had some merit.
When the flag committee was established I hoped, as I presume most of us did, that they would be able to come up with a proper decision which would be acceptable to everybody in this house. I, for one, did not want the matter decided that way. I think the matter should be decided by parliament if it is possible. I believe this is our job and this is the reason we were sent here. We were given a mandate by the people, not necessarily or only to fulfil election promises because we live in a dynamic society, a changing world. In any event, the people who voted for me expected me to put what talents I have to work to solve the problems of the day as they arise. Some people are saying, therefore, that we have no right to decide this matter by means of a plebiscite; that we should decide it in parliament. I rather supported this view up until the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and his government made it impossible for me to vote freely in this house. They forced us all to take a partisan attitude. A free debate would have permitted us at least to instruct each other, if not provide us with better ideas on how to act like gentlemen and on how the people in our own districts feel.
This is what I have done. I challenge anyone to say this is not so. I hear remarks in the corner to the effect that I have spoken four times already and this will be another

Canadian Flag
empty contribution. Hon. members should at least do me justice by reading what I have said before they condemn me. These four speeches were as long as I am permitted under the rules. I stated what I sincerely felt. No one could construe from my words that I had anything but the greatest respect for that other great race of people, the other partner in confederation, for whom I have great admiration and affection. What do I get? When I get on my feet I get abuse, hisses and catcalls. If any member doubts my word, he has only to read Hansard. I do not want to name the man who said these things, but at one point he went so far as to say I would be rubbed out. Those are the exact words. His name does not appear on this page of Hansard to which I shall refer. I do not know if he was not identified or if he was talking behind his hands so that the Hansard reporter could not get his name; but I know who he was. I am not going to say who he was, but his exact words can be found at page 6938 of Hansard for August 17, and they were, "We will rub you off." By no stretch of the imagination can anybody take any meaning from that other than it is the language of the underworld. I hope the hon. member did not mean it. I hope he was not speaking for any group of people when he said that. I spoke from my heart and in my speech there was not one word which anybody could say was narrow-minded, controversial and so partisan that I should have been subjected to that type of abuse.
The only reason I mention this today is because the same type of remark is being made, and I do not think it is the type of remark that will keep partisanship down. I have been trained to control my temper. Perhaps at times I may sound a little warmed up but I shall never get to the point where I threaten the life or safety of another hon. member of the house.
I expected at the time that, after seeing it in Hansard, the hon. member might deny it because it is the kind of talk Canadians dislike. By rights we could have asked the Speaker to have him removed from the house. The fact that such a threat is made under the protection of parliament does not add any lustre to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. It seems to me that having made this point the hon. member should go on to discuss the amendment before the house.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, if I have gone a little beyond the bounds it is because I am trying to show that if this type of attitude persists in parliament and creates the kind of atmosphere we have, then the press and T.V. commentators can assume we have lost our heads and are no longer fit to make a proper decision on this subject.
I started out by saying 1 wanted parliament to decide this question, but how can it when threats are made on a person's life? I hear groans opposite, but I point out that that remark has never been removed from Hansard and is to be found at page 6938.
Only one man on the opposite side got up on his feet and gave his true and unchanging attitude to this whole matter, the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). He made a courageous speech and I can only assume he must speak for the Liberal party because they have not repudiated or refuted him. No hon. member on the other side got up and took exception to what he said. I believe it is the duty of hon. members not only to oppose arguments put forward by the opposite side of the house but also to qualify such definite statements as appear to be entirely in opposition to the stand taken by one's own party. In the absence of that I can only assume the hon. member has the approbation of most of the members in his party. If the rest of them do not agree then they must be 100 per cent behind the three maple leaf flag which was originally introduced and upon which the Prime Minister said the government would stand or fall. Then he said there would be a free vote, but the ink was hardly dry on Hansard before he returned with a different proposition, a double flag for Canada.
If there was an election promise that we were to be seized of this question and had to decide it before going home for Christmas, why did the government not stand behind its pledge to have one flag for Canada, one flag for one nation? It was a courageous act on the Prime Minister's part to introduce a motion on the flag issue, but it was not particularly courageous on his part to back down almost immediately, and to continue to back down until now we have reached the position where a flag recommended by a parliamentary committee is before us, a flag originally proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a single maple leaf flag.
You may argue all you like about the colour, and design but to my way of thinking this decision to abandon the three maple leaves and adopt one maple leaf was nothing

but a political gimmick. Those who staked their political future on the three maple leaves back in May have forgotten them completely. They now say they believe in a gentlemanly compromise, but it is hard for me to believe this is a gentlemanly compromise.
It is hard for me to believe that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), who was the spiritual mother of the three maple leaf flag, could be convinced by a short argument in a plugged committee-plugged in the sense that there were more government members on it than we had on it-that he should abandon the child of his own imagination. I can only assume he was told to do so. I know he is a man of great courage and conviction, but I cannot understand why he did not stand up like the hon. member for York-Humber and fight this thing to the bitter end.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask my hon. friend if he does not feel it makes very good sense that there could be several really excellent possible flags for a country, all of which in one way or another tend to relate to or dignify the heraldry of that country or the history of that country? Does he feel there must be only one right flag for a country?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: No, I do not think anything I said suggested that at all. 1 am talking about why I insist on a plebiscite, because parliament has made a political football out of this thing. The question has gone beyond that of design. We have made a political football of this, perhaps on all sides. I am not accusing the government alone of doing this. We have been driven into a corner where we are perhaps putting up too strong an argument for a particular design which we happen to prefer, but I certainly do not see anything wrong in my standing on my feet and saying I prefer one particular design, or in the hon. member for Leeds supporting his spiritual child. No one would criticize him for doing that. In fact this is all so reasonable that a member of his own party agrees with me.
But when the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) says, "I will have anything that is not British," surely this is a partisan point of view. Why not something that is partly British? I do not object to any design which may have some connection with the French race, whether remote or not. Personally, if I had to design a flag-and I know a little about heraldry-I would like to see the union jack quartered with the lily banner of France. This would represent the marriage of two nations and would be correct in heraldry.
Canadian Flag
It would designate the differing points of view and loyalties but show them co-operating together.
I hope my contribution to this debate has been positive. I have tried to find the proper compromise. At no time have I said I want to ram the union jack, or any other design, down hon. members' throats. I believe in democratic free speech. I believe in it to such an extent that I did not make a point of it when a threat was made against me. I thought the important thing here was to decide, if we could, on some compromise- if we must. I do not think any member of the Conservative party has said: We must have the red ensign and that alone. If we were rabid about our British connection, surely we would make no objection about having the double submission to parliament. I want one flag for one nation. I had hoped we could reach agreement by compromise on such a flag. If we had started with a clean slate and kept it out of politics and if the Prime Minister had not risked the life of his government on it, we might now have something like the lilied banner of France, and the union jack quartered in our national flag.
Some day Canada may be a republic; I do not know. We may be moving in that direction. If such should be the will of Canada as a free democracy, I suppose I must accept it. I am not a great royalist, but I still believe there are many ways in which the British commonwealth is of great help to Canada. I think the monarch as referee under our parliamentary system is still essential to proper debate, to British justice and to that loyalty which unites us all in one big, happy family. There were many people in Quebec who went out, perhaps to jeer the Queen as she passed. But when they saw the cultured woman who went by, in all her majesty and simplicity, a woman who speaks the two languages, English and French, as well as any member of this house, they began to change their minds and were even proud of her. And all I want to do, is to present my attitude toward democracy and co-operation in such a way that members will perhaps be proud of me. I mean by this that I love the French nation. I am trying to learn the language so as to be able to speak to Canadians of French origin in their own tongue.


Mr. Boutin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder in what way the remarks of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg)

Canadian Flag
are related to the amendment now before us and calling for a plebiscite?
I suggest that the hon. member should be called to order so that we might vote without delay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have to say that the point is well taken. I have the impression that the hon. member is somewhat distant from the question we are discussing today. His remarks are very interesting and the Chair has been following them closely but perhaps at this time he might wish to relate them to the point which the house must consider.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Possibly I am trying too hard to make my point. But I do not think the House of Commons is in the mood any longer to discuss this question in the way it should. This is because we have made a political football out of it. And, as I have said, perhaps I have some responsibility here; perhaps some of the things I have said could be considered in that light, though I hope they cannot. But this issue has become a political football, and in the circumstances the argument I put forward in favour of a plebiscite at this time is one based on the wishes of my own people in the Athabasca district. They want a plebiscite. I do not have the facilities to conduct a Gallup poll but I sincerely believe the majority of them want an opportunity to make their views heard on this particular subject. I do not only mean those who vote for me, by any means. I have received letters from people who I know as well as any politician can ever know do not vote for me. Yet they have sent letters-


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to point out, for the record, that there are only six Conservative members in the house at present. Therefore, only six are interested in the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is not a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: They are all reading the new code of ethics.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The people of my riding want a plebiscite and I would be delinquent in my duty if I did not tell the members of this house how they feel. That is, surely, my first, second, third, fourth, and every other duty, namely to do what the people back home want me to do. That is why they sent me here and

that is what I have to do. This is why I have no difficulty whatever controlling my temper; I will stand here and represent them no matter what is said. They want a plebiscite. They want a chance to express their opinions because-and I think I can say this quite properly-they think we have abdicated our position here; they can have no faith in any decision we may reach, now, in the House of Commons on this subject.
As to whether or not we are engaged in a filibuster, let me say this: On September 8 we had a vote in this house as to whether or not we should end the flag debate and get along with more important matters. The Liberal party voted 100 per cent to carry on the debate. Apparently they did not want to carry it on themselves; they wanted to hear us. Well, we are doing what this house voted to do; we are carrying on the debate. And I think the debate could soon be put into its proper perspective if we were to vote on whether or not we should hold a plebiscite.
There are arguments that a plebiscite should not be held because that is not the Canadian way of doing things. I remember the last plebiscite. It was during the war and a plebiscite was taken to decide whether or not individual Canadian citizens should be forced to bear arms in the service of their country. The questions on that plebiscite were worded in such a way that they were difficult to understand and interpret. It may well be argued that if a plebiscite is hard to understand and if its results may be misconstrued it has serious defects. But I am convinced that plebiscites are not without value and that they are legitimate and normal when a parliament has got itself into a position where it cannot carry out its duty properly. I am convinced we are in that position today and that it is my plain duty to vote so as to give the people a chance to get us out of the unholy mess we are in. The people have their ideas. They want to be heard and I believe they have the right to be heard. They have asked me as their representative, as their member from Athabasca, to make their views known in no uncertain terms, because they agree with the fourth estate and the representatives of other news media in what they say to the effect that we have not done a very good job here in parliament on the flag.
I do not intend to accuse members of being partisan in anything they have said or done since the start of this debate. I do not believe in accusing other people. I believe that if you accuse other people of being crooked,

the accusation carries within it an indication of your own character. I would advise the people who accuse me to read my speeches and see whether I am a narrow Anglo-Saxon. They might even look into the latter statement more closely. I have in my constituency people of other origins, and sometimes from people of those other origins I get letters saying: Why do not the two great founding races, so-called, get together on this question and behave like gentlemen? Our native people say: We kept our side of the treaty, why don't you keep yours? They were promised conditions in which to live superior to those they had. They were men of honour, and they expected to be dealing with men of honour.
The position taken by our own French speaking members is often regarded by members of the opposition as a horrible example of disunity within this party. I can give an explanation of this. It is not possible to expect unanimity, even on such a matter as a plebiscite, because in our party we are individuals, each and every one of us. Our leader has been accused by people outside the party, of trying to ram this plebiscite idea down our throats. I believe the idea of a plebiscite is very largely backed by the members of our party, although we are not unanimous. It would be strange if 95 men at any time- if they were men of thought and courage- were able to say they were absolutely unanimous and could find no reason for difference. If this was human nature, if this was the Canadian way and we could expect 20 million people to be unanimous, why would we need this institution? Surely it is to decide whether a question such as the holding of a plebiscite can be resolved here like gentlemen, having free speech and tolerance one for another.
I repeat again, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think it can be repeated too often in this atmosphere, that I do not deny to people of French origin or people who merely live in Quebec, perhaps, their full opinion on this matter. I do not object to any symbol which they may want incorporated in their flag. The only reason I have stood up for the red ensign myself is because since a child I have considered it my flag. Since 1921 it has in fact been our legal flag, and is until parliament decides to the contrary. Since 1944 it has been confirmed, and was confirmed by a Liberal government at that time who thought that perhaps Canada was not mature enough to accept the responsibility for changing its flag and perhaps putting on that flag something entirely new. There are arguments 20220-689i
Canadian Flag
in favour of that point of view. I do not object to giving the people of Canada the opportunity to remove the union jack or any part of it from our flag; I merely make my own contribution and say that I like the union jack, and I know why-because it stands for British justice. Is it strange that a man like myself, who spent 23 years in the mounted police, should have some respect for that flag which flies every day outside our detachments? It is a lifelong habit of respect, if nothing else. But I do not expect everybody to respect that flag; all members of this house were not mounted policemen. We do not have unity even in the army on this subject; there are many servicemen who do not want to retain the red ensign. They have the right to get up and say so, if that is their opinion. And many of them are of British origin.
If you read all the speeches in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, on this subject I think you will find that most of those which have come from this side of the house have been reasonable, well thought out, factual and even unimpassioned. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am sometimes surprised at the restraint with which we accept the barbs; I am surprised at the way we accept hisses and catcalls when saying merely that we like the flag under which we serve.
Surely it is not strange that men should stand up and say, "I respect this flag because I served under it". I wonder what citizen of the United States would even dare get up and say, "Let's pull down old glory". We are a very tolerant people; we allow people to get up and say, "Get rid of it and everything British, regardless". That was said in this chamber this afternoon. I have not said, "Let's shoot them. Let's take them out and hang them", or that sort of thing. A member has a perfect right to say that he wants no part of this flag to be retained as a symbol; but I would object very strongly if, having voted on the matter and having decided on one particular design, he said he was no longer going to be loyal to that flag and serve under it. The hon. member has not said that and I am not accusing him of it. Surely we have a right to stand up and put forward our views in connection with those things we love dearly. I do not only love things that are of Anglo-Saxon origin, but I love things of French origin; their literature, songs and the people themselves. There are times when I wonder whether this feeling is mutual. I do not like to wonder about these things; I do not want ever to wonder whether we are a united nation. But people talk that way

Canadian Flag
sometimes. I like to hope it is only because they are taking things a little too seriously; that their passions are aroused by things said over here, or things which they think have been said over here. These things do make people angry.
I believe I am making my point, Mr. Speaker, that in this atmosphere we cannot decide this matter like gentlemen and therefore we should let the people decide what they want in this regard, who after all are a little more removed and can be more dispassionate than we in this house. The people should be given the opportunity to make their views known in this matter. There are objections to this course being followed. It is said that we cannot put this problem to the people in a reasonable manner. I think we can. I do not think there is any haste in this matter. I do not see any reason why, even though the government has in the past committed itself to something-I think they committed themselves to a foolish promise-they cannot withdraw this matter. I would admire them more if they withdrew as gracefully as they can and said, "Really there is no haste. We made our promise to bring this subject forward and intended to dispose of it in parliament; but we have got to the point where we cannot". I do not think we can, and therefore I believe the only solution is to send it to the people. I do not think it is beyond our legal brains to draw up a plebiscite that would be fair and would allow everybody to vote on this question. I do not think it would be very difficult to decide upon one of a number of designs in this manner. I would suggest that the most important thing to be decided is whether or not we are going to have the red ensign or some modification thereof, or a complete denial of that type of flag. If that is what the Canadian people want, what is wrong with there being two votes on the question. We could get rid of the first question first and then decide, if we can, between the three maple leaf design, the one maple leaf design, or four, five or six designs. At this juncture I do not think it is a question of design. I do not believe this is bothering most of us. It is a question of method; it is a question of whether we can make a rational decision of some kind with a gun at our heads- economic, perhaps.
I do not believe most of us are here to earn a living. It is a tough way to earn a living, if that is what it is. Some of us like home life. So don't use that kind of economic gun, because it doesn't work. Some of us

would come here for nothing; some of us would pay to come here and have the privilege of putting forward the views of our people at home. Men on both sides of the house have paid; members of the Liberal party in this house have served their country with great distinction and great personal sacrifice, perhaps even to the point of death. How much their services in this house have contributed to their early death, I do not know; but these people did make great contributions. I am not going to say-and never will-that because a man sits on the opposite side of the house he has no contribution to make; and I hope there are men over there-in fact, I know there are-who will not write me off as nothing but a partisan, because I am not.
If a plebiscite is put to the people, the three maple leaf design may well be resurrected, and if the people of Canada vote for that flag, I will do the same as the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) and serve under it. He and I served under the old flag and I am certain we will do it again. I know it is that kind of thing that will bring us out of this difficulty. Let us have some of this spirit now, and co-operate; let us admit that we are in a boghole and resolve this difficulty. Let us admit that we have called each other too many names and have been impatient with each other. I hope that my speech today will induce members to let bygones be bygones so that we may have a free vote, a vote free of political pressures of any kind. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is what we came here for. This would be far and away better than holding a plebiscite. However, I do not think there are ten men in this chamber who believe we can decide this question here fairly and squarely, because it has already gone too far. I accept responsibility in this regard. On behalf of myself and my party I do not say the fault rests with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). It certainly does not. I share the responsibility with him. I am not speaking for the rest of my party but I am speaking of my impressions from what the rest of my party have done when this matter has been discussed-unless they have had secret meetings which I have not heard about. The Leader of the Opposition has merely been expressing the feelings of our party arrived at in a democratic way; we are democratic in our party and in our country. There are times when we have to take a stand somewhere, especially when we have this political and economic gun put to our heads. We are forced into a corner in

which we have to make decisions that perhaps would not be made if people had the courage of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). I am quite sure he made his decision all on his own. It is a mistake, to my mind, for the rest of the Liberals to be silent and to suggest that the whole case has been made for their flag. If I were the hon. member for Leeds I would be disappointed if my colleagues did not rise and speak in the debate in this house. They knew they would be here, because they planned it. They had no legislation or anything else-


John James Greene: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes.


John James Greene: I wonder whether the importance that his party puts on this question is indicated by the fact that a while ago there were six members of his party in the house, and now there are 12? If this question is so important why is there not a better representation?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The hatchet men of the Liberal party are at work again. These interruptions come from the same area at about five minute intervals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I hear groans coming from hon. members opposite. Is there anybody else who would like to ask a question? At least the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) stands on his feet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Apparently an hon. member is accepting the invitation of the hon. member for Athabasca.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I think every argument in favour of a plebiscite has been mentioned in the various speeches made to date.
In the last several days the speeches made in the house have only been a repetition of the same arguments, whether valid or not, according to the member who makes his contribution.
Can the hon. member for Athabasca tell us why the Conservative party goes on rehashing the same points instead of giving the house an opportunity of deciding for or against the Conservative amendment concerning a plebiscite?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the cooperation of the hon. member in instructing
Canadian Flag
me in my parliamentary duties, but I am trying to make a positive contribution in the few minutes I have at my disposal, and if I waste them I suppose that is my responsibility and my loss. At the present time I am sitting on the edge of my chair in anticipation of the contribution the hon. gentleman will make, which will show me in better manner than the short lecture he has just given me how he will contribute to the united stand to be taken toward this new flag. I should like to be convinced I am wrong. I should also like to be convinced that he, as a French speaking Canadian gentleman, will give me my right to make my points, even though they be made poorly and weakly, and then I assure him that I will sit here quietly in my seat for another 40 minutes and listen to him with close attention. The translation system which the Conservative party was instrumental in putting into this house makes that possible. Again I can only regret that my efforts at learning "la belle langue Frangaise", have so far been somewhat abortive.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member forthwith-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should remind the hon. member for Athabasca that he has just about one minute left in his allotted time, and if he invites questions the time taken must be charged to him.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to invite any controversial questions. I had hoped I was putting forward principally ideas of my own as to why we need a plebiscite. It is obvious that the interjections and questions are not relevant to the point at all but are merely efforts to interfere with the time allotted to me. The hon. member for Renfrew South can carry on reading his paper or join the rest of his party in the lobby; they are not in the house either. I did not bring up this question about the attendance in the house, which we all deplore. This question was brought up by the hon. member for Renfrew South. I did not mean to mention it during the flag debate, but I will now. I should like to know where the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has been during the flag debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member; his time has expired.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of pursuing the Conservative filibuster,

Canadian Flag
but since I am asked to make a speech, I shall cut it down to five words: I am against a plebiscite.


Mr. G. H. Douceti (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with keen interest and attention, and despite the absence of many, to the many speeches which have been made on this issue. At the outset of my remarks may I point out that in a democratic country we cannot all be of the one opinion, and I am in favour of a plebiscite on this issue. I think that if the entire population of this great country of ours had the opportunity to voice their views and opinions there would be a greater degree of unity and satisfaction than would be the case if a flag is selected by this house and forced on the people. Regardless of the fact that this choice may be the flag which becomes the flag of Canada, it will not be the flag of the majority. I am not of the opinion that questions such as this should be decided by 265 representatives in this house. I agree, as do many others, that in most cases that is right; and the position is stated by Mr. Bruce West much better than I could state it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the hon. member a question. Does he not think that decision by parliament is the traditional British way to decide things; and is he not a strong supporter of British traditions? I believe he is.


George Henry Doucett: I am just going to explain that, Mr. Speaker. The selection of a flag is different from many other questions, in fact from all of them. There are no experts or specialists who can select or determine what should be the flag of this country. I should like to quote Mr. Bruce West, who says this:
All I can say is that we did not introduce this contentious question into our country's affairs. It was introduced by the advocates of the new flag. Let them demand a new flag if they choose to do so. This is their right, as citizens of this country. But when some of us object to this proposal, let the blame for spreading disunity fall upon the heads of those who introduced the proposal, not upon those who exercise their right to oppose it.
Much has been said about how undesirable it would be to hold a nation-wide referendum on the flag question, on grounds that the ordinary man in the street should be content to leave this matter in the hands of his elected representatives. Ordinarily, I would agree with this theory.
That answers the point made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). Mr. West continues:
But not in the case of the proposed new flag. For one thing, every Canadian is fully qualified to make a decision on this particular matter.

In fact, I'd like to see even the children have a chance to express their views. Second, I do not believe that in the case of the flag our members of parliament are actually representatives of our people in the broad sense although they are, of course, in the legal one. You know and I know that the cards in this important game are politically stacked in Ottawa in such a way at this time that the true wishes of the people have become greatly obscured.
I have read that because it is a very good editorial. I have said that I am in favour of a plebiscite. I am happy to have this opportunity to voice my view and the views of many of my constituents and many other people, groups, organizations and individuals, many from a great distance, who have written me letters and who have sent me petitions. They are deeply concerned regarding the heritage and traditions of our country.
At the outset I want to go on record that the whole flag issue is, as I said when I spoke on August 25, a very important one though not one of immediate urgency. Decades have come and gone and Canada has gone forward. So let us, I suggest, lay a proper foundation for the selection of what touches on the very soul of our nation. I am more and more convinced that the only way this nation can have any reasonable degree of unanimity in a problem as emotional as this one is by a plebiscite.
It has been suggested that the reason for bringing about a new flag is to have a purely Canadian flag for the nation. If this is so, then it must be one that is the choice of the people. What other way can we get the democratic opinion of our entire population than by giving them the opportunity to voice their views in a plebiscite?
The navy has always had its own flag, the white ensign. The R.C.A.F. has had its flag with the blue background, and the army has used the red ensign. All these flags have one thing in common, the union jack in the upper quarter. Over the years these flags have come to mean much to those who have served in the forces and have therefore become part of our heritage and the focal point in rallying the nation in times of emergency. I say that a plebiscite would be most fair to those gallant men and women who have served this country, in that it would give them the opportunity to voice their own likes or dislikes. To prevent this now would seem to me to strike at the very foundation of our nation and discount entirely our past heritage. It would mean that we would be turning our backs on the many glorious

sacrifices made in the past that have built up this country to where it stands among the nations of the world today.
These sacrifices were not made by one ethnic group alone but by individuals of all groups who had come to regard Canada as their homeland. As a Canadian I am proud of this heritage and these sacrifices, and I see no legitimate reason for tossing them out without giving all our people the chance to voice their views in respect of this important matter.
In this fast changing world, Mr. Speaker, are we trying to establish a new Canada today, something which began in 1964 and which posterity will look upon as dating from 1964? Yes, Mr. Speaker, a plebiscite is what thousands of Canadians want. We have been made aware of this through the petitions which have been addressed to the house, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the members of his cabinet and to individual representatives of the different ridings. The people feel it is their democratic right to have the right to decide on their nation's emblem.
I further realize that feelings in regard to this important issue are mixed, but to what extent is one of the things that I think is unknown. They are mixed and we cannot be sure as to the situation. We do not know whether 30, 40, 50 or 60 per cent, or what percentage, hold a particular view; but if a plebiscite is held it will establish to what degree and satisfy all.
There are many besides those who have spoken in this house who have endorsed a plebiscite and the democratic right and privilege of the people of the country to voice their opinion. I should like to quote from The Legionary of July, 1964:
The Legionary therefore takes what is probably the last opportunity available to make one more appeal to the Prime Minister to let the people of Canada decide this crucial question. We do so because we earnestly believe a national plebiscite is by far the most clearcut way of settling the problem once and for all, and because we sincerely believe it is the only means of avoiding, so far as it is possible to do so, making it a partisan issue. Even if a "free" vote of M.P.'s and senators were allowed there would be a natural tendency, human nature being what it is, for government supporters to vote for the government's own design, and it is far from certain that a parliamentary vote on an issue of this nature would accurately reflect the feelings of the whole people of Canada.
As we said in our May issue: "In a free democratic country, where public opinion is neither regimented nor suppressed, instances occur when the people are stirred to the innermost depths of heart and soul. Then it is that government by the people, for the people, is given true effect by a
Canadian Flag
national vote on the issue at stake, and on that only."
The Legionary believes that the flag question is such an issue and again strongly urges the Prime Minister to let the Canadian people decide it, one way or another, through a national plebiscite. It is the most democratic way of solving this problem. It is the only way to ascertain what the people really want. And the request for a plebiscite is sure to be warmly supported by all Canadians of good will and moderation because, no matter what the result, if the issue were settled by a parliamentary vote only, grave doubts would arise in the minds of a great many citizens that it represented the will of the people. These doubts would linger on for many years and would remain a serious obstacle to the attainment of national unity.
So please, Mr. Prime Minister, let the people decide. It would be a statesmanlike solution and might well be a nation-saving move.
Now, those are the sentiments of the Legion which has, I suppose, upwards of a quarter of a million members. Many of their comrades who served in the war paid the supreme sacrifice and are not here to tell their story. I said before, and I repeat, I feel the government got off to a wrong start by introducing a definite design. This contention has been borne out by the report of the flag committee. The committee voted 100 per cent against the proposed three leaf flag. Surely, Mr. Speaker, when an issue tugs at the very soul of a nation great care should be taken in arriving at a solution. Each citizen should be given the democratic opportunity to express his or her opinion. In my opinion, if this were done it would do a great deal to curtail much of the controversy which the choice of a flag has created and bring about a greater degree of unity in our country, which the fathers of confederation endeavoured to create by binding us together in one great family.
I say, give the people a voice. They will remember our great inheritance. By the same token, we are the custodians of a sacred trust. Let us remember the religious emblem which permeated the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Let us recall the significant reply given by Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, the then prime minister of Canada, when he was asked why the new Queen had been proclaimed in Ottawa as the defender of the faith. He said that this was a Christian country. As a Christian country, I believe the majority of the people wish to retain the emphasis of the cross in our national flag. The cross is primarily the symbol of the Prince of Peace, the Saviour of the world. Every city, town and village throughout Canada has a church building upon which there

Canadian Flag
is a cross as a symbol of worship and racial tolerance.
Like many hon. members who have already spoken in this debate, I have received many letters and petitions from individuals and organizations throughout the country concerning the way in which the flag should be selected. Since I have received many petitions, I should like to quote from just a couple. First, I should like to quote a short portion of a petition coming from my own constituency of Lanark, which I have the honour and privilege of representing:
We, the voters of Lanark county, go on record as being opposed to the proposed new flag-or a new maple leaf flag to replace the red ensign. Every Canadian should be given the right to vote on this vital matter by means of a national plebiscite.
I said before, Mr. Speaker, and I say again, there are no experts in this matter of deciding a flag; there are no specialists in this field. It is purely a matter of emotion and sentiment. It is for this reason I am so definite and strong in my conviction that the only equitable way of bringing about maximum unity is to allow the people to go to the polls and decide by means of a plebiscite.
I should like to quote now from a letter from the Canadian Corps Association which, on many occasions, has been in favour of the red ensign. I quote:
The comments of our Prime Minister that those who support the retention of the Canadian red ensign are endeavouring to pressure the government into an election have been made by him to simply confuse the flag issue. It is not the supporters of the present Canadian national flag who have been pushing this flag issue to the priority decision position that it has at this date reached in parliament, but it is the Prime Minister's personal endeavour to place his flag design on the flag poles of this country that has resulted in this issue reaching such controversial prominence. With such divided opinion throughout Canada on the flag question, we cannot understand why Mr. Pearson will not allow the people of Canada the opportunity to choose between the Canadian red ensign and his new suggested maple leaf choice.
It is true that the government is elected by the people to change or set policies from time to time with regard to the conduct of this country's business, i.e. Canada's pension plan, income tax rates, baby bonus, agricultural policies, national defence policies, immigration policies, etc. However, the changing of Canada's national flag cannot possibly be classed in the above general business procedures of our country. We, as Canadians, do not feel that we want Canada's national flag to be changed from time to time at the whim of the various governments. Does our Prime Minister not realize that millions of citizens living in Canada today of voting age will still be alive for another 50 or 60 years, and therefore why should 265 members of parliament whose average years in office are approximately 15 to 20 years, choose the flag which all Canadians would then be expected

to respect during their entire lifetime? This is the reason why a plebiscite on the flag question is most necessary...
We would also like to point out in this letter, that the Canadian Corps Association, dominion command, considers the advice of the Prime Minister that a referendum on the flag would cost over $10 million is again simply another smokescreen in the flag question. Those who support the retention of the present Canadian national flag have not urged that the flag plebiscite need be conducted immediately-
-we do not wish to see our government waste money either, for it is the people of Canada who supply the money. The flag question ballot could be placed in with the regular voting ballots in the next scheduled general election of this country, and there most certainly is no need of either an election to be called, nor a $10 million immediate referendum when the question can be placed before the voters of this country, when the next regular general election is scheduled, and in the meantime the present national flag should be flown as it has been for the past many years until the people of Canada signify to the contrary.
Our organization fully realizes that there are many important national problems before the present members of the House of Commons that should most definitely take precedence over the flag question, and again we reiterate that it is not the supporters of the retention of the Canadian red ensign as Canada's national flag who are forcing this issue to the foreground in parliament.
In conclusion, I would like to mention that for the past half a century or more, this country's prime ministers and members of parliament have always indicated that Canada's veterans' views were respected statements by citizens who had served their country well in war, and were continuing to serve it loyally in peace through the welfare and service work of their organizations. During the past few weeks because of our present Prime Minister's open-combat attitude against the veterans organizations' views on the flag question, politicians, newspapers and general citizens have openly ridiculed the ex-servicemen who down through the years since 1900 have served Canada both at home and abroad. This type of criticism by those particularly in government authority has damaged the prestige and character of "service organizations" and we trust that it was never the intention of our present government to do so.
That is signed by the president of the Canadian Corps Association. As mentioned in that letter, there is no rush.
Much discussion has been given by many concerning the design of a flag, as though we never had one. It is strange that we should exist as a nation for nearly 100 years, sending our representatives to all corners of the earth, with our armed forces serving on every continent and recognized as Canadians wherever they have gone, yet our present government has wasted valuable time stirring up discord and resentment in every part of Canada.
Distinction is something that is earned. Culture is something that time creates. You do not build culture trying to destroy another, or denying that it exists. You give free

vent to all worth-while cultural influences. Surely it is not wrong to look back over our shoulders at yesterday. The fact that we are still predominantly British and French in outlook is what really makes us Canadians. If we forget sentiment and abandon tradition we may court extinction rather than distinction. We cannot live in the past, but we can live by it. A country which does not honour its past has no future.
This is no time for party politics. We should rise above it. The democratic world is watching. This is a matter in which history is being made, and some day a boy may ask his father to tell him the story of our flag and the father should be able to say, "Son, it was our finest hour." Let us see that our efforts are such that the generations to come will be able to say, "Son, it was our finest hour."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. G. L. Chatterlon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I hear remarks of "dispense" and "question." That indicates the attitude of mind of people across the aisle and on the far left. They know in advance what I am going to say. Their minds are made up, but I can tell them they do not know what I am going to say.


Gilles Grégoire: You have already said it.


George Louis Chatterton: If the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) would listen for a moment he might learn something. It is unlikely that he will do so but it is a suggestion he might follow. I am speaking on the amendment which in effect proposes a plebiscite on the question of the national flag.
At the outset let me say that I am strongly opposed to the principle of a plebiscite-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Louis Chatterton: I hear applause from the other side, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps they will hear me out on why, in spite of my strong convictions against the principle of a plebiscite, I nevertheless feel that under certain circumstances, including the present, the advantages of a plebiscite overbalance the disadvantages.


An hon. Member:: What about the political considerations?


George Louis Chatterton: Responding to the interjection from the other side may I say the
Canadian Flag
political considerations are entirely from those on that side.
In conveying to hon. members my conviction against the principle of a plebiscite when it is up to parliament, the governing body, to accept the responsibility, I would like to relate that when I was in local government in British Columbia, before I became a member of this house, on many occasions I decried the provincial legislation in that province which required consent of the people-in effect a plebiscite-when in my opinion the local body of government should have had the responsibility or right of decision. Yet in spite of my strong aversion to the principle of a plebiscite, I nevertheless feel there are valid arguments for supporting the proposal at this time.
The mere fact that, in spite of my convictions as to the principle of a plebiscite, I have arrived at my present position must surely indicate-at least it does to me-that we have arrived at a sorry state when we have to resort to this measure. If the whole issue of a flag had been approached in a different manner the question of a plebiscite would never have arisen. For example, if the same approach was taken by the present government as was taken in 1945-46, I doubt if this question would ever have occurred to anyone in the house.


An hon. Member:: They never had a
decision.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, I hear from the other side, from some person who is afraid to stand up and make a speech, that there was no decision. There was a very clear decision from the special joint committee of 1945-46; but the difference in procedure at that time and today was this, that in 1945 the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was set up to propose a national flag for Canada and it was not told in advance that this or that flag for the preference of the government or the prime minister.
The committee entered upon that debate with a completely open mind. No instruction was given to them as to what they might or might not do. As a result of this approach the 1945 committee came up with a recommendation. As a matter of interest only, the recommendation happened to be the Canadian red ensign with the shield replaced by a maple leaf. The pertinent point is that the committee came up with a recommendation based on a vote of 23 to 1.


Maurice John Moreau: Fourteen to nothing.

Canadian Flag


George Louis Chatterton: That vote of 14 to
nothing was, of course, the committee's vote against the flag proposed by your Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
It is unfortunate that after the committee reported in 1946 the government of the day neglected to take action. But the fact remains that if the flag question with which we have been dealing had been approached in the same manner, and if the government had proposed the adoption of the report, there would certainly have been the odd person here and there who would raise objection, but generally speaking there was a consensus. To me, the question of the flag is akin to certain matters which are defined in the British North America Act. In other words, I feel that questions such as the flag should be treated as constitutional amendments, and that only when there is general consensus among the major groups within Canada should a change be made. If this question had been approached as it was in 1945 and had the report been acted upon by the government, then the question of the plebiscite would not have arisen. As it is, the manner in which the government opened this flag question has created difficulty and disunity. I intend to quote from certain newspapers across the country to substantiate my contention that the manner in which this question was raised has resulted in disunity. Because of the disunity which has been created it becomes necessary, unfortunately, to proceed with a plebiscite as the only way out of the dilemma in which we find ourselves.
There are one or two alternatives and if the government were to accept them a plebiscite would not be necessary. However, I doubt whether the government will accept these alternatives; I will come to them later. On the basis that the government is determined to pursue its present course I believe a plebiscite is the way out, because this government is creating and compounding disunity.
In support of my contention that the government's approach to the flag question is creating disunity I would quote from the Victoria Daily Colonist of May 29, 1964 which says, referring to the proposed change in the flag:
Such attempts were resisted by Mr. King and Mr. St. Laurent but their successor, Mr. Pearson, is now leading the attack on the pretext of unifying the country.
Why the change? It doesn't require much insight to realize that Mr. Pearson is after additional seats in the House of Commons and thinks this is one way he can get them.
No matter what his scheme there can be no doubt that the Pearson way of handling the flag issue has caused bitterness that goes very deep; that it is bound to weaken the country; and

that it will not satisfy those who have been and still are shouting for a nation made up of a partnership of states.
Certainly, Mr. Pearson has no right to expect that his arrogant action will be applauded or accepted by millions of his fellow Canadians.
Perhaps I can relate my personal impression of this disunifying action. What has disturbed me more than anything else, and I speak with the utmost sincerity, is the reaction which has been created, certainly in British Columbia. I agree that most of this reaction is not justified. But it exists and it makes the necessary reconciliation very difficult. This reaction has been caused by the manner in which the Prime Minister and the government have treated this question of the flag-a very emotional one. Incidentally, I may say that those who are interested may read the speech I made in this house during the previous debate. I come from an area which is probably one of the most pro-red ensign parts of the country, but I have been most conciliatory. As a matter of fact, I have been blamed by many people in my riding for being too much so. I read from an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail of June 16, 1964, of which this is the opening paragraph:
Prime Minister Lester Pearson's claim that he has pressed the issue of a national flag at this time to promote national unity is now no more than a bad joke-a sick joke. It is painfully apparent that he has succeeded only in encouraging disunity.
The first point I am trying to make in justification of the holding of a plebiscite is that the present course of the government is continuing to create disunity and that, therefore, a plebiscite would be the least objectionable course open to us. I wish to quote an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Province of October 31, 1964. These opening paragraphs refer to the flag debate creating disunity:
Undue prolongation of the flag debate. ...would bring about a general election which would be fought on the French-English issue, would set province against province, group against group and would jeopardize confederation.
The foolish tragedy of all this is that the whole flag argument is a phony, politically-manufactured issue of relatively little importance compared with the urgent and important agenda confronting parliament. And yet it has been allowed to stalemate the nation's business and threaten a minor civil war.
Mr. Diefenbaker and those who support retention of the red ensign are told they will destroy Canada if they don't knuckle down to Mr. Pearson's new flag. They are warned that on them rests the onus of responsibility.

This is an enormous distortion that should not be allowed to hide the truth. And the truth is that the ugly, nonsensical dilemma in which Canada finds itself is the direct result of pathetically inept leadership on the part of Prime Minister Pearson and his little coterie of brain trusters.
If the Prime Minister has an ounce of statesmanship he will recognize the danger of his foolish flag policy and withdraw his flag proposals until times are more propitious.
I have shown that the procedure adopted by the government in regard to this flag question has tended to create disunity. May I digress by saying that in my opinion the right in Canada to hold a plebiscite is not reflected only by our statutes, but by the British North America Act. It is reflected also in the minds of people. I think the most unfortunate part of this flag debacle is the fact that in the minds of people, particularly those in western Canada, there has been created a suspicion which will take a long time to overcome. It must be overcome, and I believe that every member from those parts of Canada is duty bound to try to overcome it. But the fact is that this suspicion has been created and it has tended to destroy the mental attitude of the people toward understanding our difficulties in Canada.
I now come, Mr. Speaker, to the way in which the flag question was handled by the flag committee set up during this session. At the time the flag committee was set up- I believe that was on September 10-I think there was a genuine desire in all parts of the house to arrive at some compromise conclusion that would have been satisfactory or at least reasonably acceptable to most groups across Canada. To my mind that feeling was very obvious from speaking to members on both sides of the house. I believe that if the feeling which was prevalent at that time had prevailed when the committee was considering this question-I hope I am not wrong in saying this-they might have come up with a conclusion which would have been reasonably acceptable to all groups within Canada. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister perhaps largely because of mis judgment, in his statements immediately after the flag committee was set up tended to prejudice the chance of the committee's arriving at a near-unanimous and acceptable report.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Louis Chatterton: I am giving my reasons for believing that the present and past procedures of the government make it necessary or advisable to have a plebiscite. According to the transcript of the program "Conversation
Canadian Flag
with the Prime Minister", on Sunday, September 13, 1964-that was just three days after the flag committee had been set up-the Prime Minister was asked a question by Mr. DePoe. This is the question:
Just time for one more quick question-perhaps a very quick answer, sir. Are we going to have a new flag by Christmas?
The Prime Minister: We are going to have a new flag by Christmas. It's going to be a distinctive national flag and it will be based on this historic and proud emblem of Canada, the maple leaf.
I was watching television at that time. I believe the committee had been set up on the previous Thursday, and I was most hopeful when it was set up that an acceptable conclusion would arise out of the committee; but when I heard the Prime Minister on that Sunday night I said to my wife, "There isn't a hope". Mr. Speaker, whether or not the Prime Minister meant that, in my opinion those statements of his made it extremely difficult for the members of the flag committee to go into the committee with a completely open mind and a sincere wish to arrive at an acceptable compromise.
I should now like to quote from the Victoria Daily Times of September 17. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the Victoria Daily Times is a good newspaper but it is not one that has been renowned for its support of our party. In this article, written by Mr. Frank Rutter, it is said:
Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson Wednesday night brushed aside any question of a personal compromise on his new Canadian flag.
A crowd of 750 people who came to shake his hand at a coffee reception held by the Liberal party cheered wildly as Mr. Pearson rededicated himself to his maple leaf design.
He made it clear that he expects the House of Commons special committee to approve and the house itself to adopt the recommendation without further fuss.
I maintain that with a committee operating under those circumstances, whether or not its members did in fact make the sincerest effort to arrive at a compromise, in view of those remarks of the Prime Minister in advance of the committee meetings it certainly made any recommendation of the committee suspect in the minds of a great number of people.
Another reason I say a plebiscite should be held is this. I believe the flag committee could very easily have arrived at a recommendation which might have been accepted by this house with no or with very limited debate. I say this of my personal knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I believe that one of the flags considered by the committee would have been acceptable to members on both sides of this

Canadian Flag
house if there had been no debate or argument as to the design subsequently. I refer now to one of the three final flag designs to which the committee had boiled down all the designs. As the house knows, the committee divided all the designs they had received into three groups. The first group was based on the single maple leaf, the second group was based on the three maple leaves, and the third group were those that contained the union jack and/or the fleur-de-lis. From each of these groups the committee selected one as the best design.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Louis Chatterton: I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that if a design had been selected such as I am going to describe, the question of a plebiscite would never have arisen. To repeat, I maintain that if the design I shall describe had been selected, the question of a plebiscite would not be before us today. This particular design, for the record, is exactly the same as the one finally selected-that is, the red maple leaf on a centre white background and a red border at each end-except that there are two small additions. In one red column there is a small union jack, and in the other red column a small, equally sized square with three fleur-de-lis in it. As soon as the committee report was filed, I believe on November 29, I became curious as to what this flag looked like. I happened to get a copy of the flag and it immediately seemed to me that this was a perfect solution. This design had many advantages. In the first place, it was not a political flag; it was not a flag proposed by the Conservative party, or any other political party. It was apparently a design of the experts on the flag committee. That design has as its central motif a maple leaf; it is a maple leaf flag.


Mr. Depufy Speaker:: Order. In spite of the suggestion made by the hon. member to the effect that what he is now saying is relevant to the question before the house, the Chair has very serious doubts about it and it seems the hon. member is now discussing the question of the work done by the committee. He says that if the committee had reached a different conclusion or had made a different recommendation, then a plebiscite would not have been necessary. To my mind this is rather far fetched in the line of relevancy. I would ask him to relate the argument he is now proposing to the Chair to the subject matter under discussion.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, if I may eliminate my references to the findings of

the committee, I am trying to state the case that under certain circumstances I for one would not support a plebiscite, but that under the circumstances which prevail I would support it. I am trying to describe these circumstances which do prevail, and one of the factors which make up the circumstances is that I believe there is a design which might be acceptable, which would therefore eliminate the necessity for a plebiscite. This particular design I have described could, I believe, be acceptable to members on both sides of the house, and I hope I am not too optimistic when I appeal to the Prime Minister and to hon. members opposite to take another look at the question of design. A design which met the requirements of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would surely eliminate the need for a plebiscite.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are not very far from arriving at such a design. To me, the whole question whether we should have a plebiscite or should not is not necessarily one which the people have the right to determine. I believe that if the members of this house came to a consensus on a selected design and there was no major group in the house which took strong exception to it, then I for one would not for a moment consider the necessity for or advisability of a plebiscite. I think the whole question boils down to the selection of an acceptable design.
There is at the moment an amendment before the house, and on the basis of the present amendment I could not within the rules move another amendment which would bring about what I have in mind, which is reconsideration by the committee of a design which might be acceptable to groups in all parts of the house. Such a design, of course, would eliminate the necessity for debate. I would go as far as to say that if such design were agreed upon by even the two major parties I would, under those circumstances, support the government if it were to invoke closure in order to bring about a design which is acceptable to the majority of the groups within Canada. I do not know whether it is too late to do this. I do not know whether the positions of the various parties have hardened too much. But I would make an appeal to the members on the other side of the house. I have spoken to many members from all parts of the house, and I must say I had hoped that we might reach agreement in spite of the recommendations of this committee. I have spoken to individual members on an individual basis, and they agree with me that possibly there is a design which would be generally accept-

able and which would eliminate all necessity for extensive debate, and certainly obviate any stipulation that there be a plebiscite on the flag question.
With regret, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I must now support the proposal for a plebiscite in spite of the fact, as I have pointed out, that I am strongly averse to the principle involved. As to what should be covered by a plebiscite, that is another point; but if this question were referred to a committee, I would hope that the committee would come up with two designs, and I do not think the red ensign should be one of them.
If this question were to be covered by a plebiscite, I think the designs which the committee should come up with are these. First of all, the committee grouped some flag designs into three kinds. I say that the committee should consider two groups of various designs. Everyone seems to be agreed that a new flag should be based on the maple leaf, which would be its main motif. Then the committee could recommend that two flags be submitted to the people from which they could choose. The first flag should be based on the maple leaf but carry no symbols of our heritage, our traditions or our past-as the present one recommended by the committee. The second one should be a design something of the order of the one I have described. It too should be a maple leaf design but should carry something of our history and of our past. I know from what some of my colleagues who are French speaking have told me that they are not anxious to have the fleur-de-lis on the flag. But let me tell them that the people in the west consider that the contribution made by our French speaking colleagues is a most important one and they would like to see some indication on the flag of the major contribution they made to Canada.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Edgar Walker: I see a quorum, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.
Canadian Flag


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, I hear members opposite yelling "question". Of course, when they had a chance to call "question" they did not make use of it. Last Thursday night it was moved that the debate be adjourned so that we could go on with other business but at that time, of course, members opposite were in favour of continuing the flag debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I might mention to the hon. member that this is the second time in the course of his remarks he has offended against one of the rules of the house that requires members not to reflect on votes of the house. So I would ask him not to refer in this particular way to the vote which was taken earlier in this debate.


George Louis Chatterton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling. Sometimes it is difficult to stick to the rules in the face of provocation.
I want to conclude briefly the remarks I was making before six o'clock. I said that I was opposed in principle to a plebiscite but that the circumstances were such that I thought a plebiscite was the only course open to the house in view of the situation to which the government had brought us. I still think at this late stage that although positions have hardened, particularly the position on the government side, there is room for manoeuvre, room to arrive at a conclusion which might eliminate the necessity of what I consider would be an unfortunate plebiscite. I say that because if we did have a plebiscite, no matter what its terms might be, it would tend to continue and perhaps even deepen the disunity that has been caused by the raising of this question. But at least after a plebiscite I believe the people would accept the decision that might be made, whatever it might be. But if the decision is to be made on the basis of the present course of the government, then, Mr. Speaker, judging by what a great many people in my area have told me, it will take a long time, a generation or more, for those people who feel so strongly about the flag that they considered was our flag, to overcome the feeling that something has been taken away from them, something which they have revered, something they thought was an essential part of Canada as they saw it.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, unless the government is prepared either to postpone the flag issue or unless they wish to consider a further referral to the committee so that the committee can come up with a proposal

Canadian Flag
that will be acceptable generally to the various groups within Canada, I maintain that the only alternative, and a regrettable one, is to refer the question of a flag for the decision of the people of Canada, and in my opinion the decision should be made simpler by having two designs submitted to the people.


Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief. I did not intend to speak in this debate, but since the last flag debate I have had so many letters and so many comments on the way this matter has been conducted in the house that I am almost forced to say a few words.
On Armistice day, when I watched the parade with the four red ensigns being carried at the front, I felt sad and with heavy heart I said to myself: Is this going to be the last time we will see our grand old flag being used on Armistice day? I was standing in front of the west block and a gentleman and his wife came along. The Canadian red ensign was flying side by side with the stars and stripes. This man spoke to me and he said, "Why do the people of Canada want to throw away the red ensign?" He looked with pride at his American flag. He reached over and stretched it out and stretched out the red ensign and his wife took a picture. He said, "I want this picture for fear the red ensign will not be seen flying again beside our stars and stripes."
I was in St. Catharines over the week end. Having been born near the water, I love boats. On the prairies we do not see many boats and I spent a lot of time at the Welland canal watching the boats of almost every nation in the world go through the locks. On their masts they all flew the Canadian red ensign along with the flag of their own nation. As to the ships that were coal burners or diesel types, the white in the flags they were flying had become dirty, but the Canadian red ensign stood out with its loud colours. It is a very picturesque sight.
While I was standing there talking to some people, one man said to me, "You know, the Canadian red ensign looks great on those ships." I said, "Yes". He said, "Why are the people in Ottawa trying to throw it away?" He did not know I was a member of parliament or that I Was standing up for it. He gave me quite a talk on his feelings about throwing away our heritage, all our
[Mr. Chatterton.l
past experience, for a flag with none of our traditional symbols on it.
These are just a few of the comments I wished to make on some matters that have been brought to my attention since the flag debate took place a few weeks ago. I am still getting quite a few letters. Here is one from the Canadian Corps Association, which reads in part as follows:
The Canadian Corps Association, dominion command, at this time reiterates that no change in Canada's present national flag should be made unless the government is so instructed by the citizens of Canada by means of a plebiscite vote held in conjunction with Canada's next general election.
I do not know why those sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, are so afraid to let the people decide. I believe this is the fair method. We are down here to make rules and laws, but I do not believe a minority should decide on an issue upon which the people of Canada are so divided. I am one of those who are willing to go along with the opinion of the majority after the people of Canada decide. If it is the majority wish to have a distinctive Canadian flag, I would go along with that. I was born in Canada and spent my whole life here. I was not overseas in the first world war, but as a boy of 16 I offered my services and was led by the Canadian red ensign. I was proud to be one who marched behind it.
I said my remarks would be brief, Mr. Speaker, but I felt that because of the way things have been handled in this parliament this issue should be decided by the people. If they choose the red ensign, that is O.K. If they choose a distinctive Canadian flag, that is fine. I cannot see any of the traditional symbols of Canada on the flag that has been proposed. As I have said, I just wanted to make a few comments on these matters. I am still receiving letters about the flag. I have received 154 letters from my constituency and 152 of them have asked me to stand up for the red ensign. Oh, yes, I received one letter from a man I know very well. He said, "why should we worship England all our lives?" I answered that letter and I suggested that regardless of the flag upon which we decided, he would not be satisfied unless it had the hammer and sickle on it. I also received a letter from a 15 year old school boy. He did not say what kind of a flag he wanted, he just wanted a change. The other 152 letters asked me to stand up for the red ensign and to bring this issue before the people of Canada.

I hear a few railbirds down there, Mr. Speaker, but they do not say much. I am sorry I do not speak French, and your speeches are not worth the bother of putting on earphones.
With these few remarks, I will resume my seat, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, did not intend to take part in this debate. I took 20 minutes of the time of this house during the last debate, and I do not regret it. I tried my best not to say anything that would provoke anyone else. I have sat in as many parliaments as any man in this house except one. In the 25 years I have been here, I have never sat in a worse conducted parliament; I can say that truthfully. I am not referring to the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. They have had an impossible job, and for the life of me I do not know how they control themselves. It is ridiculous, the things they have had to put up with, and mostly from members on the government side. We on this side know enough to keep our mouths shut and remain quiet when there is someone speaking from the other side. Apparently all hon. members opposite want to do is make interjections to try to confuse the person who has the floor.
I have a few things I want to say and because I have only a few things I wrote them out during the supper hour. I am one of those who has to either speak without notes or follow my notes closely. I do not want anybody razzing me about reading my speech. I am not going to read it all, but if I have to throw it away it will be all the worse for you. As I see it, there is only one excuse for bringing the flag resolution before the house and that is the lack of preparedness on the part of the government to introduce other important legislation. I could add that the legislation which has been introduced was withdrawn and redrafted before it even had a change of being passed by parliament. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) used the flag issue to stifle parliament for his own selfish, personal advantage. He used the flag issue also to kill time in order to get more important legislation ready to bring before the house. What an excuse that is. It has cost the Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars. If I were the Prime Minister of Canada and responsible for introducing a controversial subject such as the flag, I would at least be in my place in the house to hear what members had to say about it.
Canadian Flag
I have a clipping here from a newspaper that is very favourable to the government. I would not quote from any other newspaper because I want to be very fair to them. This comes from the Winnipeg Tribune.
There was nothing wrong with Prime Minister Pearson's speech to the Royal Canadian Legion except its object.
He chose this occasion to haul down the red ensign.
The speech was in reality a declaration of Liberal government intent. At the same time it was an attempt to justify a new emblem on the grounds of national unity. The case was unconvincing.
Prior to his visit to Winnipeg, Mr. Pearson had let it be known that his government would stand or fall on the flag issue. It is the government which has selected this particular time to force a showdown.
It is this newspaper's opinion that the timing of this flag proposal is bad. If the main purpose is to consolidate unity it is a peculiar approach for, as witnessed at the Legion meeting, the dominant reaction is disunity. Unfortunately, too, the Prime Minister's approach leaves little ground for thoughtful consideration. He asks, in effect, for a surrender of what is known for something unknown. He entertains a mystique about the price of unity which he is unable to articulate.
In addition to poor timing, the method of introducing the design was odd. In Ottawa last week a high level press conference made it clear that the Pearson government would stand or fall on the new flag. The following day in the Commons Mr. Pearson said that a new design had not been decided upon. At the Legion meeting on Sunday, he left the impression that only the maple leaf motif was firm. Yet the next day Mr. Pearson unveiled his choice at a press conference.
Just how much the cabinet was apprised in advance of all this is unknown. But certainly parliament has been kept completely in the dark.
I might mention at this point that the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) made a statement in the house to the effect that this subject was never brought up in the Liberal caucus, and nobody knew anything about it except a few at the top levels of government.
In attempting to force an absolute decision in this ill-defined region, the Prime Minister has created a maelstrom. It is true that he has attempted to reduce the problem to straight political terms but unfortunately this does not provide the flexible basis required.
He has placed himself and his government on the record to introduce a new flag. He has rejected the proposal for a national plebiscite and insists that the issue must be decided on a free vote in the Commons. But then he has also added that the result would be interpreted by his government as a vote of confidence.
In other words he is prepared to fight an election on the issue. He is willing to jeopardize national unity in the hope of political advantage but he is unwilling to seek an expression of opinion in a plebiscite in which the issue would be the flag, not seats in parliament.
This places the M.P.'s in a position where they no longer will be truly free to exercise their

Canadian Flag
judgment on the merits of a flag. Instead they will have to weigh the significance of the consequences, a government defeat and, even worse, an election to be fought on the design of a flag.
Such an unpleasant encounter could scarcely be an ingredient of unity. It would also be mischievous and perhaps seriously harmful, for surely the problems of this country cannot be resolved in the flag alone.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You will get the question soon enough, don't worry about that; but you will not be satisfied with it after you get it.
We have a great number of people all over Canada who would vote for a truly Canadian flag if for no other reason than unity. On the other hand the great majority of our people would much sooner have what we now have than take a chance of separating Canadians even more than they are already. There is only a very small percentage of people in Quebec who are separatists or revolutionists, thank God. We even have a few in this House of Commons but they are still a little afraid to stand up and be counted because of their extremist neighbours.
A lot of legislation was introduced before the flag debate started, and most of it had to be taken out again and redrafted because it had not a chance of being passed by parliament in its original form. The Canada pension plan has been redrafted four or five times.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order please. I think the hon. member will admit he is straying far afield and I would ask him to return to the subject matter before the house.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, because I do have a great deal of respect for you.
This is a quotation from a letter sent to all hon. members by the Manitoba branch of the Christian action movement:
The red ensign probably commands a greater following than any other individual flag design submitted to the committee. Though, unfortunately, the flag has been made a party issue, many rank and file Liberals prefer to retain the red ensign but out of party loyalty may avoid overt opposition. The flag should not be a party issue, or the subject of a personal battle.
I do not know how many Christians we have in the house but, believe me, we would be better off with a few more. I am now going to recite a piece of poetry and then, you will be glad to know, sit down:
Our flag, our flag, our glorious flag,
The emblem of the free;
It proudly flies in every clime, it floats on every sea.
Beneath its grand old sheltering folds,
There never treads a slave,

Before it tyranny must sink to an unhonoured grave.
Unfurl it free to every breeze,
Long may it wave on high,
The ensign of the bravest race That dwells beneath the sky.
Beneath it stands the empire vast,
Girded in power and might.
Beady, aye ready to defend its honour,
And ready to defend its right.
Our flag, our flag, our glorious flag,
The symbol of the free.
Our flag invincible on land,
And a flag that rules the sea.
Our red ensign,
Why trade it in on another?


Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, on two other occasions I have spoken on a resolution on the flag, or on one of the amendments. On June 20 I did my level best to try to plead with the house that we in Canada must always remember we are a country of minorities. I tried to remind the members that we should be an example to all the new countries of the world where several languages and several races have to get along within the same geographical boundaries.
On that occasion I reminded the house that most of us in Canada do not favour the technique of the plebiscite. It is foreign to the system of parliamentary responsibility we have learned to trust, but I pointed out that there are certain occasions which touch the heart and affect the rights of minorities when we have to consider whether we should use the plebiscite technique or not.
In that speech of June 20 I reluctantly supported a plebiscite, on the grounds that looking back at the last plebiscite we had during the war, on the conscription issue, the speeches made in the house on that occasion contained all the arguments that could be used against holding a plebiscite; yet a plebiscite was held, and when it was finished Canadians found it easier to accept the will of the majority than they did in 1917 in the first world war when conscription was imposed by parliament. When the rights of the individual are affected, when matters close to the conscience are affected, there is sometimes a place for the plebiscite. That was the burden of my remarks on June 20, though I did not succeed in making many converts.
I want to remind the house of what I said on that occasion. All the veterans of our country have asked for, through majority votes in their Legions, is that a plebiscite be held. They have promised if a plebiscite is held to honour any flag which the majority may choose. What more can you ask of them?

The same is true of the other organizations. I would point out that if the government turns down the formal request of the official organization of most of our veterans it has done something which everyone of us in Canada will live to regret. Surely after what they have done they deserve our best consideration.
In the second place I want to remind the house that according to Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, speaking in this house as prime minister, by a single resolution here in parliament the guarantees to the French language could be taken away. I suggest that if we set a precedent in this debate by taking away an emblem of a minority culture, we are setting a precedent for things to happen in the future when passions are aroused which will tend to break this country apart. I say this slowly and deliberately with no sense of malice whatsoever. If someone moved a resolution in this house to take away the rights accorded to one of the founding races of this country I would expect every person on the Conservative side to fight as long as they could within the rules to protect the rights of that group. This is what is happening today.
I do not know what percentage of the people of this country wish to retain on the flag an emblem of their tradition and their past. I do not really know, but I am aware that.it is sizeable. Certainly if one third of the people of this country want to have something of the union jack as a reminder of their great history, their rights must be considered if we wish to maintain this country as a democratic country of minorities. Rightly or wrongly the flag is one of the symbols of one of the founding races of this country. As I said earlier, this speech of mine on June 20 did not make much of an impression across the way. But on August 20 I tried again and this time, in the middle of that long debate, I asked that this question be considered by a committee. I laid down four basic principles which could, I thought, have united this house and the whole country behind the work of that committee. These principles were apparently not considered by the government. It was not until after the long Labour week end, after a motion on the Thursday by the New Democratic party that the debate be adjourned so that the house could go on to more important business; it was not until the Tuesday after the week end, when the Creditiste members had come back from the rural seats and said they wanted to adjourn
Canadian Flag
the debate because the people demanded it, that the government, saved by a narrow squeak, realized that every opposition party was united behind the idea of sending this matter to a committee. It was only after 22 days of debate that they let the question go before the committee. Did they consider the four basic principles which were laid down by the opposition-and I was speaking on behalf of the opposition that night?
What were those four principles? First, that in a matter such as the flag we should all strive, regardless of whether we are Conservative or Liberal, to start off with the largest possible percentage of the people behind it. That was the first principle. It was wrong to take a personal flag, a party flag, and force it on parliament saying: If you do not accept it there will be an election. We fought against that blackmail, and with the help of all the opposition parties we forced the government to place this question before a committee, after 22 days of the time of this house had been wasted in discussion. I say this loudly and clearly, Mr. Speaker, because I believe you know we are speaking from the heart on this subject on this side of the house. It would make no difference to us if all the people of Canada were to turn against us as long as we remain faithful to what we consider to be the right. It is not a question of counting noses in this house or even across the country. Above all our party divisions the people sometimes expect that we should, on certain occasions, stand up in this house and say what we think as individuals. This is what I am trying to do.
What was the second principle I enunciated at that time? It was that on any flag the symbols and the background of the two founding groups should be there in equal parts, neither superior and neither inferior. I said this not because I was unaware that our country today is a multiracial country but because I thought it is recognized that certain understandings were reached in the early days which we must honour today. The flag now put forward ignores this fundamental principle.
Third, I said there should be something on the flag to represent the humility which any country should have if it hopes to have a future. And the only way I knew for us to do that was to put something of religious significance on the flag. Because of the faith which is accepted by the vast majority of people in the western world, the only thing we know as a generally accepted emblem of religious significance is the cross-and I say this without
10S08

Canadian Flag
wishing to assert the superiority of the Christian faith over other faiths. But in the flag of Canada should be expressed that humility, that acceptance of the fact that there is a greater power than ourselves.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I just want to know if the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) is now talking to the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A point of order has been made by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis). Perhaps the hon. member was not addressing his remarks strictly to the question before us at the present time, which is the matter of the amendment to the main motion. Possibly he would want to relate his remarks to the subject matter of the amendment.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I bow to your judgment, Mr. Speaker, but if what I was saying is not relevant to what a plebiscite should contain, I do not know what is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, I would like to suggest to the hon. member that the question before the house is not what a plebiscite should contain but whether or not there should be a plebiscite.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it has passed your memory for a bit, but I would like to read from the motion:
-the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to conduct a plebiscite to be held at the next general election in order that the Canadian people may be given their rightful opportunity to declare their choice concerning a national flag; and that the committee for such purpose be revived.
Certainly if we are going to revive the committee I would suggest, with deference to Your Honour, that you have to discuss what the terms of reference of that committee are going to be. That is why the previous committee failed. That committee was formed; they took five members from one party, seven from another and one from each of the others. But they did not have any terms of reference beyond the general reference to go into committee. If there had been basic terms of reference to produce a flag that would meet the wishes of the house, I believe such a flag could have been produced. To put it very bluntly, Mr. Speaker, that committee should have been instructed to bring out a flag that would get the support of the two major parties here, with the support of one or two of the others if they wished; a flag that would be

unanimously accepted, in effect, by the majority of the two main parties. That committee did not have any terms of reference and they ended up voting purely on party lines, with one exception.
However, I would like to leave that point. If it bothers the hon. member, I know that at his own expense he got thousands of flags printed and they are no good to him any more; but that was because of his own cupidity and it is up to him to get out of that mess. If he is a little angry today, he should not blame it on me; he should never have allowed his Prime Minister to bring it in.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was a poor investment.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What is the situation now? We have no certain way of knowing, but all sorts of polls have been taken from one end of this country to another. These polls, lacking anything better, are the best indication of what is the feeling in the country. One particular poll is taken every week. This poll showed at one time that a certain percentage of people of the people of Canada wanted a plebiscite; the last one showed that another percentage wanted a plebiscite. This figure has been quoted many times but I will quote it again. In the 11 cities covered by this poll 60 per cent of the people asked for a plebiscite three weeks ago; only 33 per cent wanted parliament to make the choice, and the balance had no opinion. If that is the best information we have from the cities, what would the figure be if you took a survey of the country areas, where people hold more closely to their traditions and institutions? I think it is safe to say that two thirds of the people of Canada do not want the members of this house to take away from them something that is a matter between themselves and their God. They want the right to choose the flag under which they serve in peace and in war. Ignore that, on the other side of the house, at your peril; because ultimately you must answer to these same people.
I want to make that very clear, Mr. Speaker. We are going to be watching very closely to see that every man stands in his place and is counted. We want the members of every constituency to be counted, and I could go along the front benches and the rear benches here and name them all.


An hon. Member:: Then let us vote.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We want to know why they have sat idly and silently here when a matter affecting the whole spiritual basis of our country is being decided. And they claim

they are under a free vote. The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) performed a great service for the Liberal party when he told the truth. The Liberal government that was thrown out in 1957 had become historically famous and notorious because it was a party of trained seals. This one is down on its knees waiting for free handouts from the Prime Minister. This is the party which ignores 60 per cent of the people; which ignores a Legion, representative as it may be of only part of the veterans of this country but who surely deserve the right to be listened to when they ask for a plebiscite. But you have closed your ears; you have closed your minds-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We have quite a few veterans over here.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -to anything or anyone who suggests that these people should be listened to.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Wait until you have had some service before you speak for the veterans.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the distaff side of the house has spoken.


Mr. Graffiey:: Not very honourably, either.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would like to give you another fact, Mr. Speaker. The Gallup polls only measure a very small number of people but they do try to give some evidence of what the people in the country are thinking. The latest figure we have had from a Gallup poll, I believe, indicates that approximately 50 per cent of the people polled want some form of new flag; but it also indicates that 42 per cent want the present flag, and about 6 per cent have no opinion. This means, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with a flag for which there is no majority of support as yet, because it is a new flag, and the house is being asked to accept it. In other words, because 50 per cent of the people want a new flag, all the rest must accept it. I would suggest that when a Prime Minister wanders about this country speaking on one hand about unity and reaching out with the other hand slapping his party down into miserable conformity, to divide this country by bringing in a flag like this, those actions should be spoken of in language that everyone can understand.
Why do we want a plebiscite? First of all, I do not think there is any chance of persuading any person in this house to accept views other than those he has made up his mind on: I do not think there is any chance of making one vote's difference or change here. But it is our duty to fight on as hard
Canadian Flag
as we can to give the people a chance to speak on something that is their right, namely to decide the flag that flies over them. The fairest way now, in view of the attitude in the house, is to let the country decide; and if the decision is made in a plebiscite that will give them their right to express their will; the minority will obey the wish of the majority. I also point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that many of us have fought very hard to get here and none of us likes the burden of elections. But this government, now wracked and torn with dissension as it is, faltering in its last few months before it disintegrates, has to face up to the people one day; and when they do each member opposite will have to stand up and answer for his actions.
Those from the poor areas of Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes will have to go before their farmers, who have the lowest income of any part of Canada, and say, "We have not done anything for you; but look at the beautiful white and red flag". Ask them then about your wonderful fight for this new flag, which not one of you stood up and supported. When I say "not one", I use that expression in the euphemistic sense of "very few". We want a plebiscite held.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Several conversations are going on across the floor and this is unbecoming to the dignity of the house.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, some of the debate across the house is due to the provocative nature of my remarks. Hon. gentlemen opposite are usually quiet and mannerly and act like $1,500 a month men should act; but since they have chosen me for their target I am glad to accept their challenge. I should like to make my views clear, and my time is running out. I suggest that we hold a plebiscite to give the people the chance to decide the matter.
I do not know whether you will rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, but before you take any action in this regard, what I want to discuss now is the type of things which the committee should recommend as matters to be dealt with on a plebiscite which will make sense. We have already suggested to the house that the plebiscite should contain four choices. Obviously with the three maple leaf flag shot down in flames the proposed committee flag will have to be left as one of the choices on a plebiscite. Because of the strong emotional feelings for the red ensign, that will have to be left off. Therefore I am going to propose

Canadian Flag
at this time, as a suggestion from an individual member of the opposition and not from a party, that there is still one chance for us to come out of this matter united. I suggest we realize the strength of feeling behind the traditional, distinctive national flag we now have, but at the same time realize the strength of feeling which would be created by a brand new flag. My suggestion is that we get down to basics and realize that most people in this country are not ashamed of their past, be they English or French. We would all like to have on our flag our own symbols. If the union jack is not acceptable because it is an indication of subservience to a colonial structure, let us take off the union jack the two crosses, one white the other red; one standing for the cross of St. Louis which was flown on the ships in which Jacques Cartier landed here in 1534, and the other the cross of St. George which was the standard of John Cabot when he landed here. I know that many French Canadians do not regard John Cabot as the equal of Jacques Cartier, but that is a small consideration in the achievement of unity. I know that the Scots, the Irish, yes and the Welsh, will feel a little unhappy that their symbols have been removed. But for the sake of unity I suggest that if we had the two flags of the two founding races, the two crosses, we would have both insignia that I and my party want to see.
I think that if there was a willingness in this house to reach some sort of compromise instead of complete division, and we could get 80 to 90 per cent of the members together-and they could come together on this -if the government still wanted to fight for a maple leaf flag I am sure that not one of us would oppose the emblem of the maple leaf centred on the two crosses. Whether it was a green or red maple leaf I do not think would bother us too much. But if this flag compromise were reached, I would hope that the background would be either blue or red. I say that, because who wants to see a white flag flying over Canada? Colour is very important to us.
The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) had his own suggestion about a flag. He unveiled it in his counties and found wide acceptance for it. He tried it out in deep dyed ensign country and it was found acceptable there. Why would it not be acceptable to the members of parliament here?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman would permit a question. I do not want him to yield the floor until he knows why I have risen. Is he prepared to answer a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps the hon. member would tell the house why it is that he takes such strong objection to what he alleges is a design proposed by the Prime Minister of Canada and then has the temerity to suggest his own design to the house?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Surely that is his right.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her question, because that is the very point. We discussed alternatives long ago. We said we should not put forward a party flag.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Qu'Appelle had, I realize, some qualms himself as to whether the line he has been taking during the last few minutes was acceptable and in order. It is the impression of the Chair that the question of what should appear on a plebiscite was discussed for many days during the original debate and was voted on, and I am wondering whether at this stage the debate which has been held in this house and on which there was a decision should be revived. I thought the hon. member should be given an opportunity to state his point briefly, but I feel it might be better if he did not unduly extend his remarks in that direction.


William Skoreyko: I rise on a point of order, but only because I want you to extend to this house the proper degree of fairness. Your Honour allowed a question from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) which I thought was completely irrelevant, and then reprimanded the former minister of agriculture, who did a tremendous job for this country, when he made a statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that his words are rather strong. The Chair did not reprimand the hon. member for Qu'Appelle but was as discreet as possible in asking him to be relevant. The Chair had no way of knowing what question would be asked by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh). She was allowed to put a question after this was requested and accepted by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. Whether

the question was in order or was not in order the Chair could not decide in advance.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to go to the final stages of my speech, and I am watching the clock very closely. I should like to say to my hon. friend who questioned me that many of the members in our party wanted to bring forward suggestions months ago but thought that the whole principle was wrong. We thought that if a party brings forward an idea automatically opposition is built up to it. We had hoped that the committee, which had the basic principles at heart, would come up with something which grew out of the committee, and that is the reason we held back. The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska mentioned this matter once but he was not on the committee. The point is that the committee did not accept any basic terms of reference, made no effort to get complete unanimity from both major parties, and as a result it failed.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a statement which I make with very great caution because it is one I have pondered for many months. I want to make absolutely clear to hon. gentlemen opposite that when I stand up and vote in the house on the amendment we have before us, and finally on the main motion, I shall be voting on the selection of a Canadian flag. I believe in one Canadian flag, not two, and when the next motion comes up I am going to do all I can to persuade as many members as I can not to vote for a second flag so there will be no union jack flying over Canada by any resolution of this house. I want to explain why I am going to take that stand because it may make some sense to some of the people over there with regard to how they may vote on the particular amendment now before us. You are being asked here to vote on a plebiscite.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Dorchester has a point of order, I believe.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I find it surprising that you should let the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) go on when his remarks are not related to the matter under discussion, especially after calling him to order three or four times. We are not talking about the flag but about whether a plebiscite should be held. Con-
Canadian Flag
sequently, I would ask you to call the hon. member to order and remind him to keep to the matter under consideration.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I know you must be getting tired of these points of order because if you cannot do your job by now there is not much hope for you. I suppose the hon. member has earned his $1,500 a month by that intervention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to conclude with a statement I think may have some sense and some meaning to my hon. friends from Newfoundland, from the maritimes, from British Columbia and parts of Ontario. This I know, that many members on the other side have indicated to me privately that they are only voting for this flag because they think the union jack will be flying alongside it. I want to say here and now that the union jack is a proud flag-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -but it is not my flag. It is the flag of another country. I fought hard for it in the war.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May we have order. I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle will agree with the Chair that his reference to the particular subject matter he was just mentioning is obviously beyond the terms of the amendment now under consideration.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that before the people vote in a plebiscite they have to know what the implications are. I want to make absolutely sure the people know that if a plebiscite is turned down by the house there will be only one flag when this matter is finished. Many people in this house on both sides are prepared to vote against the second resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Therefore the choice now in voting on the amendment is in your hands. I want to make that very clear.
On the question of the debate itself, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the contributions of those who have remained silent when the time came for them to speak have been confined to raising points of order and questions and making interruptions and interjections. Their contributions indicate that they do not have freedom of expression of opinion.

Canadian Flag


Eric Alfred Winkler: You are hamstrung.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Members of this party have got up and expressed their views absolutely in accordance with their consciences, and we are proud of one another that we have had the courage to stand up and say what we think. These gutless wonders whose contribution is silence or heckling, who are not willing to get up on their feet and say whether they are for or against this flag, hope that no one will look at the votes and that in this way they will be able to get away with it. This is not a free vote on the other side. They do not want to speak because they know the orders are out not to speak. They have not got a free vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's remarks are not relevant to the amendment under consideration.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is all the more reason for a plebiscite. This is why we need a plebiscite. We need a plebiscite because this house needs a detergent to clean out all these garbage cans, to clean out all those people who are more concerned about remaining here for four years than they are about going out and telling the people what they have done, who are more concerned about keeping the house from doing its legitimate business. When many segments of the population are crying for action, all they get is long debates on the flag. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) brought the flag into the house and he can get out of the situation in two or three ways, by agreeing to a plebiscite, by letting the matter go back to a committee, or by withdrawing the matter entirely and taking it off the order paper. Those are the ways. The people of the country are going to hold this parliament responsible for not doing things which have been undone for the last year and a half. There is only one guilty group and you are looking at them right now to your right, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I greatly regret and it is indeed amazing and at least ironic that it should be necessary for the members of the loyal opposition to rise repeatedly at this time in the house and sincerely plead with the government of the day with all the power at our command not to abrogate the democratic principles which all of us were elected to uphold. I rise at this time to endorse the amendment that a plebiscite should be held. I do so not only because I sincerely believe that this would be in the best interests of national unity but also because I feel that by

doing so I am representing and expressing the wishes of the majority of the constituents whom I have the honour to represent. I would challenge every other member of the house to rise and speak for his constituents in the same manner.


An hon. Member:: They are not allowed to.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: I would particularly challenge all members from British Columbia to support the amendment. I am confident that in doing so they would be representing the wishes of the majority of their people.


Eric Alfred Winkler: All of British Columbia.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: I ask every member if he is willing to sell the democratic rights of his constituents down the river of political expediency over the flag issue by denying them the privilege of expressing their individual opinions. How often we have heard that we, the elected representatives, even though nearly all of us were elected by a minority vote, should not hesitate to take the responsibility of selecting a flag for all future generations, and at the same time discarding without the expressed wish of the people that which has been our national flag for most of the time since the birth of our nation. With this attitude I most heartily disagree.
What is the compelling urgency about settling such an emotional issue? Most people never heard of the flag issue during the last election and they certainly did not mark their ballots to decide the issue. They voted to send representatives to the House of Commons to carry out legislative duties on behalf of their constituents. I feel that a national flag certainly does not fall into that category. It is an emotional issue, Mr. Speaker, that should be held over until the next election when a plebiscite could be conducted by means of a transferable ballot.
Why the urgency? During the last world war we were faced with the possibility of conscription. The prime minister of that day, in his wisdom, would not undertake conscription without a plebiscite. If ever there was urgency for a decision, Mr. Speaker, it certainly was during that time of war. We all hear expressions of opinion from across the country, and particularly from our constituents. We see the results of polls being conducted, but they are not always reliable. I know the majority of Canadians want a plebiscite held. Recently I listened to a radio broadcast in which the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) participated. I note he is back in the house and he may be able



7, 1S64

[Stage Direction]
to correct me if I misinterpret his remarks. He was being interviewed with regard to the flag, and what did he say? The words he used were to this effect: I do not know if the majority of the people in my constituency would be in favour of the suggested design, but I do know they want to see the matter settled.
Of course, the people of Canada are sick and tired of the way the flag issue is being handled. I am, too. However, I was interested in hearing the member for Medicine Hat admit he did not know how the majority of his constituents felt about this design. If this be true, perhaps under those circumstances he would agree that the only way he could find out would be to support the amendment to hold a plebiscite. I believe this applies to every constituency in Canada. After the people decided, they could forever hold their peace. Why all the urgency, Mr. Speaker? Why all the unnecessary delay of important business when the amendment could be passed so that we could get ahead with those matters which were promised in the speech from the throne, such as the labour code and other unfinished business? Incidentally the flag was never mentioned in the speech from the throne. Suddenly we were faced with a demand for a flag by July 1; then again for the Queen's visit, and now we are supposed to have a flag by Christmas. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the decision on a new flag must be left to a plebiscite. It is too important to do anything else.
It is not too late for the government to listen to reason. I hope they will listen to reason. The present adamant program is so destructive of our national unity that it is doing damage beyond repair. The obliteration of our national symbols, which most Canadians cherish, is destructive in the extreme and cannot be creative of national unity. The only feature of this government's obsession to force a flag on Canadians that could be helpful eventually would be to make future generations flag conscious. This discussion has awakened the people to the real significance of something we have accepted as a matter of course. We have neglected to impress upon our rising generation, as well as upon our adult generations, the true significance of these symbols.
What does history really mean to our country? It has been said, unthinkingly I hope, that people could not care less about a flag. They say that any old rag will do. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this signifies nothing
Canadian Flag
more nor less than complete ignorance of the real significance of our most important emblem. We should learn from this experience the importance of educating our young people with regard to such matters. We could well follow the example of our United States friends along this line. As the Prime Minister said in the house, this is a serious, a solemn and an historic occasion. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed just that. It is an historic occasion, and I hope the record will show that we acted with forethought and wisdom; that we did not allow ourselves to become an arrogant dictatorship, but we chose the method of true democracy. We referred the matter, not hurriedly, not impetuously with political bias, but with careful instruction to the people so that they could properly exercise their thoughtful judgment in choosing what our national flag must be for all generations to come.
It is said that the majority of the committee made a recommendation which should be acceptable. It is my impression that the majority of Canadians are concerned and do not find this design acceptable. I could be wrong, but 1 am agreeable to leaving the decision to a plebiscite and I will abide by the decision of the majority. The report of the committee set up in 1945 was approved by a majority of 95 per cent. The report of this recent committee was approved by only 70 per cent. Prime minister Mackenzie King, in his political wisdom could see that a decision supported by even 95 per cent could cause serious national disunity, so he never presented the report to the Commons. During the following 11 years no other Liberal government would dare subject the country to such a division. The 1945 report never reached the Commons.
I most urgently suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would be the part of great wisdom if this report could be withdrawn and either forgotten or have the matter left to a plebiscite as suggested by the amendment. If this were done, it would have a double barreled effect. First, it would remove a most dangerous, divisive subject from the political arena. Second, it would also allow us to get ahead with more important legislation, which would be in the best interests of the country. What is of secondary importance is that it would allow parliament to have a long overdue recess, so that we could return to our constituencies and clear our brains of the cobwebs everybody has been collecting in the house. We could then return to our duties here, better informed and more refreshed to
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Flag
continue with our responsibilities. If this session represents the "continuing diversity" which was mentioned in the speech from the throne in 1963, we have sure had it. Ambiguities of this kind have certainly not been constructive or in the best interests of our country.
If the decision in 1946 was to drop the flag issue-a wise decision I know-probably by reversing the figures 46 to 64, the same decision today could be one of the greatest wisdom. Failing this, a plebiscite is the only sensible answer. However, it would seem that the government has developed a complete mental block regarding the issue. Its obsession to have a new flag regardless of the consequences has created a psychiatric problem in the House of Commons.
It would seem from the way the flag issue has been brought in and out of the house-consuming about one tenth of our time that could be given to important legislation-that it is brought in and not purely to gum up the works, and also to make those of us who have the courage to stand up and speak for what we sincerely believe to be the wishes of our constituents, to appear to be obstructing. If defending the rights of the people against arbitrary rule, if defending the people against not being allowed to vote in a plebiscite is to be classed as obstruction, then I am proud to be one of those on the list.
If there was anything to be gained in the interests of our country by refusing a plebiscite, I might be agreeable to some reconsideration. I have not heard any expression of objection to having a plebiscite, except the same old argument that the committee has brought in a report and we must accept it. Without a plebiscite we can only create disunity. It has already been admitted by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) that reaching agreement in parliament on the choice of a flag will not achieve national unity. I understand a quotation was made to that effect the other day and I did not hear any contradiction from the hon. member.
What we want is national unity. Let us leave the flag question to the people of Canada so that we will not create disunity. Supporting the amendment is the only true and loyal way we, as Canadians, can work in the best interests of our country. I ask all hon. members, regardless of party, not to deny the people of Canada their God given democratic rights. Let us all support the only method democracy knows as being truly democratic. Let us support the amend-

ment so that the voice of the people may be heard and that Canada can continue as a united country. I plead with the government, I plead with the members of the house to please reconsider. Otherwise I am afraid it may be too late.
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should apologize for barging in on this one-party debate, but I am going to take the chance and make a few observations tonight with respect to the issue that is before the house. First of all I would like to remind the house that the position of our group has already been set forth as being a free vote-each and every one-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: He said that with a straight face.


John Ross Matheson: If he said it, it is true.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I notice that the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) , not satisfied with making his own speeches, and he has made plenty of them, has to take part in other people's as well.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I am not ashamed of speaking up.


Alexander Bell Patterson: If you were, you would be ashamed all the time.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: You will go to Africa, too; you go to Africa next.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I wonder where you are going? Each member of the Social Credit party will be expressing his own point of view as he votes on this issue. So far as my observations tonight are concerned, I am expressing my own views and my own opinions relative to the matter before the house. Furthermore, lest the hon. member for Northwest Territories insists on interrupting, I am going to say what 1 have to say in far less than 40 minutes.


William Skoreyko: You never made a 40 minute speech in your life.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I could not say that for you, my friend.


William Skoreyko: It is obvious you have not read Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, my purpose tonight is to voice my personal support for the amendment that is now before the house. Might I point out that the idea of a national plebiscite was set out by my colleague, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) on

February 27, 1964 as recorded at page 315 of Hansard, and I refer to part of the statement he made at that time:
I think the solution lies in having a committee set up that will choose perhaps four or five designs out of the some 2,500 or 2,900 designs that have been submitted, snd put thsss on 2 bsllct. They should include the red ensign, and should be put to a referendum of the people, with a transferable vote, so that each individual would choose the first, second, third, fourth and fifth in the order he preferred-
He also outlined other steps he felt were necessary or advisable in order to conduct this in a satisfactory manner. Evidently this suggestion caught the imagination of the Canadian people, and also the Conservative party, and as a result there has been a growing conviction that this would be the most democratic way of settling an issue so controversial in nature. The hon. member mentioned various steps that should be followed in conducting a plebiscite, but I shall not go into them in detail tonight because I realize I would be quite out of order in doing so.
Though, of course, the vast preponderance of correspondence from my constituency favours the red ensign, there is some which indicates the contrary, and I believe this is true of every constituency from coast to coast. Therefore I believe that in order that this question may be resolved satisfactorily or at least as satisfactorily as possible the idea of a referendum should be taken under consideration, and arrangements made for it to be held some time in the future. I think there are several reasons why such a course is advisable. We have already had an extended debate on the question of a flag for Canada and I believe we have dealt with the subject in every conceivable manner. Every angle has been considered. Controversy has raged and I believe the very fact that this debate has consumed so much time is an indication that we should submit this issue to the people and find out what their wishes are.
This matter was submitted to a committee and I am sure all of us hoped that the committee would be able to arrive at some satisfactory solution. Perhaps we were naive in thinking it could, in the light of the positions taken by the various parties before the committee was set up. But we did hope they would be able to find some compromise design acceptable to the committee and to the members of this house. The result was disappointing, in spite of the commendable work the committee did. I do not think we should detract from the excellent work of that committee. But despite its efforts it was unable to 20220-690
Canadian Flag
arrive at a design which commanded the support of the great majority of its members.
The committee has made its recommendations. It has submitted a design which has been placed before the house; but I fail to find much enthusiasm for the flag which is proposed, even on the part of those who are convinced we should have a new flag. I fail to find many who are in sympathy with the new design which has been submitted to us.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Hear, hear.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I had the opportunity of attending the commonwealth parliamentary association conference and as I walked up the lawn of the University of the West Indies I saw the array of flags and studied the red ensign in a prominent position; I tried to visualize how our flag would look had the design submitted to us been flying on that occasion. I must confess I could not get enthusiastic about the proposition. I thought it would be very anaemic and washed out in the line-up of the flags which had been designed by the other nations. Because of these various considerations I do believe this matter should be submitted to a plebiscite so that the people of Canada can voice their individual convictions-not just their views, or their opinions, but their convictions-with respect to a question as controversial as this one.
In saying this, I am not taking a new position. Some time ago, speaking on the idea of a new flag I suggested that this proposal should be allowed to lie on the table for a while to permit some cooling off time. Well, perhaps we have had that. But I also suggested that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) should give consideration to the holding of a referendum on this important issue. I am still of the same opinion and when the vote is taken on this amendment I intend to vote in support of the amendment.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: I desire to speak on this amendment for two reasons. I realize that the people across this country are completely fed up with the way in which this parliament has handled the flag question. People in all walks of life and of all ages are in a complete turmoil over what is happening here in Ottawa. They are asking why this dissension has arisen over the flag. They are asking why it is necessary to have a new flag now. They are asking why the Pearson flag was changed and whether the flag proposed by the committee represents a compromise. These are the questions which people are asking their members of parliament.

Canadian Flag
Why not wait until the next election and hold a referendum or a plebiscite at the same time as the nation chooses its candidates for the federal parliament? Why is there this urgency about having a new flag now? This is the question which is uppermost in the minds of most of our people. They are tired of this flag matter; they are completely fed up with it.
We are told-or at any rate we were told a couple of weeks ago-that a general election might come at any time, even this winter. Newspapermen are saying that nowadays the west can take an election even in the middle of winter because of the improvement which has been made in the roads in the western provinces. There were confident predictions of an election at least in the spring of 1965. So why not refer this question to the people at the same time?
It has been said that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has promised he will bring in a new flag inside two years. But two years will not be up until next April and if some of the pundits are correct we may have an election by April or shortly thereafter. Why not give the people a chance to express their choice? What is wrong with a referendum? If those who advocate a new and different flag feel the country really wants it, they have nothing to lose by placing their confidence in the national choice. In this way the people would be satisfied and the government would be satisfied because they know, they tell us, that their design will win. So who would lose? What is the government afraid of? Do its supporters feel that their confidence in the new design is not well placed? This is the only conclusion I can reach-that they must have very little faith in their design. I am sure that if a referendum were held on the flag question and the Canadian red ensign did not receive a sufficient number of the votes, even the strongest supporters of the red ensign would realize that it had died a noble death, and accept the result.
There is something strange about this whole question of a flag having to be settled now. We were told we had to have a flag by July, then by November 11, and now by December 25. Why the urgency? There is something strange about this whole question. We were told first of all by the Prime Minister that he would give his party a free vote on the question. Two weeks later he took that away and said no, the government would stand or fall on the question of a new flag. The whole of the Liberal party said it was Pearson's pennant and there would be no committee. That was said at one time. However, they

went back on that; they had a committee. Then, lo and behold, every one of the Liberal members on that committee voted against the three maple leaf design that was before the house prior to the setting up of the committee. It is a shame that in this debate two or three members of the Liberal party have not stood up and explained the reason for the change in the attitude of that group. Not one Liberal member has explained this.


An hon. Member:: They are not allowed to speak.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Could they not just inform us of their reasoning? This is a place for debate, and surely we are entitled to such an explanation if they want us to accept this flag. If they have faith in their persuasive powers as speakers, surely they believe in themselves enough to be able to stand up and explain the reasoning behind the fact that one day it had to be a design of three maple leaves, with three colours, and now we are back to one maple leaf and two colours. Does it not matter to them what they have on Canada's flag? It is a symbol that is supposed to represent Canada for years and years and years to come. Does it not matter to them what it is composed of?
I would be quite prepared to accept the new flag if the majority of Canadians wanted a new flag; but one thing that bothers me, Mr. Speaker, about this whole flag question is that we have seen the government vacillate from one flag design to another with no reason or explanation as to why this has been done. We are only clear on one thing- at least I am-and that is that the government will not accept any flag that bears any relationship whatsoever to Great Britain. This is the one conclusion I can come to.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What about the union jack?


Gilles Grégoire: Question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have always been in favour of feeling out the public on this question; I have always been in favour of trying to determine whether Canadians want a new flag. During my last speech on the flag question I was interrupted two or three times by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) who quoted from previous speeches I had made as reported in Hansard. Anyone who reads those speeches can clearly see that at page 1318 of Hansard of 1960-61 I said this:
I agree with the hon. member who proposed an amendment to the resolution.
The resolution at that time was that a national referendum be taken on a flag. I

said that I agreed with the amendment, which referred the whole question to a census. Then I went on to state what I thought should be in the census form with regard to a national flag. The other speech which I made on the flag prior to taking part in this debate was during the same year, on February 17, as reported at page 2183 of Hansard. At that time the census had already been taken, or was being taken, and I said:
The questionnaire should be sent out, or the people should be canvassed on whether they want another flag.
I am still of that opinion; government spokesmen have not convinced me that there is any real urgency in this question and that it has to be settled before Christmas. I am not convinced that we have to accept a new flag or that the majority of the Canadian people want a new flag. I am sure there would be no opposition in this house to a new flag if the government could stand up and prove that the majority of Canadians want and desire a new, truly distinctive flag with no reference whatsoever to either of our two founding races. If they could stand up and say this, there would be no opposition to the idea. If they could stand up and prove to us that this flag must be brought in by Christmas or by December 31, whichever date they would like to choose, there would be no opposition to it.
I noticed on Telepoll a few weeks ago that this question was put to Canadians. Of the people canvassed, 6 per cent had no opinion, 33 per cent said we should accept the committee's report, and something like 61 per cent said that it should still, even after the committee had brought down its report, go to a plebiscite; that the Canadian public should decide which flag we should have.
Many questions remain in my mind, Mr. Speaker, as to why the government has changed their mind on this question. They have changed their mind with regard to the original design introduced in this house and are now supporting the design contained in the committee's report. I have met many people across Canada in recent months and most of those to whom I have spoken prefer the three coloured design submitted by the Prime Minister some six months ago. Since then we have had the report of the committee. Of course they would prefer neither design, if they had a choice. I speak of the majority of persons with whom I have spoken on this question.
20220-690i
Canadian Flag
On one hand we are told that an election is imminent, and we wonder why a plebiscite could not be taken at the same time. Then on the other hand we see an article in the Edmonton Journal of August 8, 1964, wherein the Canadian Press seemed to think that this whole flag question is to be settled before an election; that it is the government's purpose to settle this question long before an election is held, so that it will not cause disunity between the two founding races of this country. They apparently thought in August that this whole question had to be settled long before an election, and at that time of course there were not so many rumours around the hill that an election would be held in the spring of 1965.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: They are not so anxious now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An hon. member says they are not so anxious now. I suppose he is referring particularly to the events of the last few weeks in this house, which have caused a great deal of concern across the nation. However, I do not wish to refer to them in my speech on the flag at the moment. I am sure the whole house would like to hear from some government members on this subject. We have just heard a very good speech by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson). That member of the Social Credit party outlined his position, and his reasons were the same as mine, namely why is there this urgency now? What is the harm in submitting this question to a plebiscite? Let us take a national count on a plebiscite so that there is no disunify-ing effect. I should like to hear some hon. member on the government side give the reason why this matter cannot be decided through a plebiscite. Why must it be decided now? What are hon. members afraid of?


Mr. Korchinski:: Because they have no legislation ready.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is right. This must be the underlying reason why we are now debating the flag question. The government brought in the labour code some weeks ago. We are now informed it has been amended and is not ready to be brought in again.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: However, I do not want to deal with that matter now.

Canadian Flag
The Canadian Press pointed out in the Edmonton Journal lor August 8, in summarizing the whole flag fanfare, that if the flag question was one of the issues in an election it would mean a slim majority for the Liberals in the House of Commons. Then the editorial goes on to say that it might create a great deal of disunity in the country.


Gilles Grégoire: We are ready for the question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: These interruptions are certainly interesting, particularly having regard to the corner of the house from which they come. We all know the devotion of that party to Canada's present flag. One question which remains uppermost in my mind is whether they will support a new flag, if one is chosen, as much as they have supported the old one.


Gilles Grégoire: That remains to be seen.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is exactly it, and I have my doubts, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: We have more faith than you.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, if the hon. member would like to make a speech he can follow me.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the hon. member a question. I am wondering whether he wants us to speak so as to pass the time. Has he nothing else to say, and is that the reason he invites everyone to speak?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That was not a question really. The hon. member asked me why I wanted him to speak; it was because I thought he wanted to say something and was interrupting me. I thought he had more than he could hold in his brain and wanted to release some of it. If that is the case I will take my seat and allow him to speak.


Gilles Grégoire: I am being brainwashed by you now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is no question but that there is something strange about this whole flag question. Why has the matter to be proceeded with now? What is so strange about it? These questions confront me daily. I have reached the conclusion, as have a great many people across Canada, that the only desire the government has regarding a flag is to remove any attachment to symbols which date back in our history and remind us of our British traditions.


Gilles Grégoire: Hear, hear.
(Mr. Homer (Acadia).]


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is this the last step or just the first step? What is going to be next? Will our money system be changed? Will the Queen's picture be removed? Is that to follow? What about the British system of law?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are we to remain under British law or will the government want to change that? What about our parliamentary system of government? Are we to form a new republic? These are questions many Canadians are asking.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly.


Maurice John Moreau: How many plebiscites have they had in Great Britain?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This question has no relevance at all to the debate. I was expressing my concern over the flag question. Where will it all end?


An hon. Member:: When will it end?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It will end. Certainly it will end. Perhaps it will end after I have finished speaking, I do not know; but it would end a lot quicker if hon. gentlemen would stand up and tell us, first of all, why this matter has to be settled now, and second, why it cannot wait until next spring when, according to all the pundits, we are supposed to be having an election. What are hon. members opposite afraid of? Have they no confidence in their decisions? They tell us that the majority of Canadians want a new and distinctive flag with no reference to Great Britain. Why cannot they take this matter to the people? Then everybody will be satisfied. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are afraid. They have no confidence in their decisions on this question. There are many questions such as these which remain in my mind and will continue to do so as long as hon. gentlemen opposite sit silent. What is to come next?
We have heard some reference made to changing the constitution. Is this coming next? Are we to become a republic? The ultimate question is: Where are we going?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Hon. gentlemen call order. If they had any faith in their decisions they would rise in their places and explain why we cannot take this question to the

people by way of a referendum. Not one hon. member opposite will rise to answer the fears which exist in my mind and in the minds of many Canadians. Why are they satisfied with any flag? It does not matter whether it has three colours or two colours, one leaf or three leaves, as long as it has no resemblance to our connections with Great Britain or to either of the two founding races. Why are we to be ashamed of our past? Why are hon. gentlemen opposite not proud of the traditions Canada has upheld over the years? I can only conclude that these hon.
Canadian Flag members are ashamed of the British system of law on which Canada has been founded.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: All we get are catcalls, Mr. Speaker. One would much prefer to have some reasoning.


Mr. Cashin:: You are right, there.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I see it is ten o'clock, so may I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 8, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Pennell.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That the names of Messrs. Woolliams, Fairweather, Nugent, Rheaume, Simpson and Hales be substituted for those of Messrs. Grafftey, Irvine, Millar, Muir (Lisgar), Noble and Stenson on the standing committee on industrial relations.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been moved, if I may have unanimous consent, by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Winkler-


Gilles Grégoire: No unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I am informed it is not customary for a member of Her Majesty's loyal and royal opposition to move changes in committee personnel in this way. It is the practice to have the whip of the government party suggest these changes. Therefore I would like to put it, with the consent of Mr. Walker-


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -that he, seconded by Mr. Winkler-


James Edgar Walker: I wonder if I may speak to this for a moment, Mr. Speaker. The other night I attempted, in cooperation with other parties in the house, to move these committee substitutions. It is something we all desire, but I was unable to get consent. I have certainly no objection to this, but I would like to suggest, if the house is agreeable, that the complete motion, which contains names of members of other parties, be embodied in this motion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Agreed.


James Edgar Walker: If the house would agree to allow me to do this sometime during the day's proceedings I will be very happy to have it done.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Oh, sit down.


David Réal Caouette: It is all right; I will sit down when I am finished.

Mr. Speaker, under ordinary circumstances we do not object to names being substituted for others on the committee which was mentioned by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler). However, under the present circumstances we believe that the discussion concerning the flag has priority over any amendment, suggestion or motion whatsoever. Until the flag issue is settled so that Canada may have a distinctive national flag, we will not give unanimous consent to the house.


James Edgar Walker: It would not take any time away from the flag debate if the house were to agree to allow me to do this at ten o'clock tonight.


David Réal Caouette: No, no.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I point out that this is the proper time in our procedure for such a motion to be put forward. I would not have done this in the manner I did but for the fact that it is very necessary that these changes be made so the committee may proceed with its work. It does not matter what business is to be brought up in the normal course of events, whether the flag debate or a debate on any other question; this is the correct procedure to be followed, and I would ask that permission be given to the government whip to proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, may I suggest that unanimous consent is not required.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the government whip, acting on behalf of the leader of the house who is a cabinet minister, rises at the proper time to make such a motion, I suggest he is

Canadian Flag
perfectly able to do so under our rules. The reason it was possible for him to be denied that right at ten o'clock the other evening was that he was seeking unanimous consent to revert to motions-


George James McIlraith: But the house was on motions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was ten o'clock and consent was sought to revert to motions. At this point, while I see objection to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce trying to make a motion without consent, I do not think the official government whip needs consent.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it is necessary that the unanimous consent of the house be obtained in order that such a motion can be adopted without 48 hours' notice. Evidently the chief government whip may introduce such a motion, but he must give 48 hours' notice, and that motion can only be adopted 48 hours hence. However, if it is to be adopted immediately, the unanimous consent of the house is required, and we refuse it.


James Edgar Walker: Then I give notice that I propose to submit these names tomorrow at this time on motions.


Mr. Lambert:: If I may briefly intervene on a question of procedure-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to cut the hon. member short, but I now have the assurance of the government whip that he will submit these and perhaps other names tomorrow. In the circumstances, in order that we may get on with the other business before the house, this will be called tomorrow.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, there is a point that is wrong.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, December 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have just a few more words to say on this flag question and the position in which parliament finds

itself now concerning it. I pointed out last evening that I have long been of the opinion that this whole question should have been submitted to the people at the very beginning by way of a referendum or plebiscite.
Speaking to the amendment now before the house, I can only repeat my earlier contention in this regard. It was brought in initially with very little forethought. It was not even mentioned in the speech from the throne. The whole house has been continually confused as to why we are faced with the flag issue now. Away back in late June we argued that the question, if it was to come before the house, should first go to a committee. We tried then to get the question referred back to the people in the form of a referendum. We are trying once again to have this done.
I realize there is a percentage of the population of Canada which does want a new flag. I have no objection to a new flag if the majority of Canadians desire one, but it has long been my opinion that a flag is the symbol of a country that should be respected by everyone. It should not be a flag born in haste, one that perhaps represents one of the founding nations of our country and not the other, or is more favoured by one of our founding nations than the other; one that has political tinges, or anything of that order. I have long been of the opinion that a flag should be favoured by the majority of the people, who will respect it, hold it dear, revere it and serve under it proudly. I think a flag should bear some relation to the history of our country; and a flag, above all, should aid in bringing greater unity to a country. This flag and the manner in which this whole question has been handled have convinced everyone, I am sure, that it has done nothing to unite Canada but has in fact done more to disunite this country than any single piece of legislation that has been before this house for a good many years.
I have wondered why there is urgency now, why this question cannot be referred back to the people in a plebiscite. There has been much talk of an election next spring and I ask, would it not be better to settle the whole question to everyone's satisfaction at that time? If the government are so confident that the majority of Canadians want a new flag and are prepared to accept the committee's recommendation for a new flag, why is there the urgency of pushing it through now? Why not wait until an election is called and settle this question by way of a referendum? The only conclusion I can come

to is that perhaps it is a stopgap; perhaps other legislation is not ready; perhaps they want to tease and torment the country and tear the country apart.
This is what this whole debate has been doing. The country is completely fed up with parliament's action on this flag question. I am sure the opposition did its duty in representing the large number of Canadians who showed in one way or another that they were opposed to the flag originally submitted by the Prime Minister; and surprisingly enough a large number of Canadians-this has been shown by all kinds of polls that have been taken week after week-are still opposed to the flag submitted by the committee.
It was my understanding that the committee would do its utmost to bring about a compromise. In a way one might term the committee's recommendation a compromise flag, but a compromise in only one direction. They retained the maple leaf idea and did away with one of the colours. Many people have long thought that the colours red, white and blue meant something; they respected those colours. Now we have one less colour on the flag and two less maple leaves. There is nothing on it to really signify our history, to dignify our country. In my opinion there is really nothing on it that Canadians across the country can worship, respect, and to which they can pay homage.
It has been pointed out that the government, while they promised a flag in two years, did so in such a manner that only a certain part of the country heard of the promise. The two years have not yet expired, and to a great many people it is questionable whether the government has a mandate to bring in a new flag. As I have said, during the last election it might have been mentioned in some parts of the country that a new flag would be designed within two years, but there was no mention of the disappearance of our historic emblems from the flag or that it would be a completely new flag which would erase our past.
The country is completely fed up with parliament's action on this flag question. It is the government's duty to bring in the business for the house to debate. I feel it is high time we passed on to more urgent legislation, legislation which is required across the country. For example, the labour code, railway financing and rail line abandonment are matters which should be discussed, using our time in a worth-while manner instead of holding a lengthy debate on this flag question at a time when there is considerable 20220-691
Canadian Flag
opposition across the country to this flag as well as considerable doubt whether the government has a mandate to bring in a new flag.
As I said last evening, I am surprised to see government members on the flag committee willing to accept a flag design which completely erases our past. Are they sure that all Canadians are of the same opinion? Are they sure that all Canadians desire and will support the flag which has been suggested by the committee?
An interesting comment was made by Conn Smythe which I think bears some relation to the question whether or not the government has a mandate to bring in a new flag. He said:
Now, all the experts In radio and television and the press are saying people are tired of the flag issue.
I certainly agree with that.
These experts are very often wrong. Last week the Vancouver Lions proved this point.
They certainly did that.
The millions to whom the Canadian ensign means so much are not tired of the ensign, and want the flag issue settled in a democratic manner. What right has a minority government, the great number of their members never having received a mandate from their constituents, to keep on forcing the flag issue? And now that this government is under the shadow of suspicion with respect to bribery and corruption, how can they expect the people to respect a flag of its choice? Why doesn't Mr. Pearson shelve the flag issue now, get on with our national business and, at the next election, give the people of Canada a chance to vote on this issue-
It is as simple as that. This whole issue should be shelved, and at the next election it could be solved to everyone's satisfaction. I think this would satisfy practically everybody in the country.
It is with that thought in mind that I move this debate be temporarily set aside so that the many questions on the government's activities in domestic and foreign matters may be answered by the ministers, and in order that government business dealing with the labour code, C.N.R. financing and provincial-federal matters may be dealt with immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), that this debate be now adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), has already spoken during this debate, and therefore under our rules cannot second the motion.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I second the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Division


Mr. Speaker:: It has been moved by the hon. member for Acadia, seconded by the hon. member for Marquette:
That this debate be now adjourned.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Elisha Brown: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Mitchell:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting to see if a Conservative was going to take the floor. Moreover, I must point out that, according to my information, the flag debate will not come to an end before the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) is back in the house. That goes to

show how one man's illness can delay parliament for a whole day. In fact, we cannot vote today because the leader of the official opposition is ill.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have of participating in this debate which has already lasted 29 days. During that time, 93 hon. members spoke once, 33 made two speeches, 18 took part three times in the debate and two spoke four times. Consequently, 146 members made 229 speeches.
You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that that is truly freedom of speech.
In addition, the moment I say "plebiscite", that word will have been said 4,081 times since the beginning of the flag debate. That is what we call freedom of speech and even freedom of repetition.
Mr. Speaker, at present-


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: On a point of order, the hon. member is not speaking to the question before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I had just spoken the word "plebiscite", pointing out that it had been spoken 4,081 times, which now makes 4,082 times.
Up to now, the debate has been going on for 119 hours, and when multiplied by the number of members, or 265, this makes a total of 31,535 hours of lost time. There are also the personnel of the house, interpreters, translators, the Clerk of the house, the second clerk assistant, pages, reporters, etc. As a matter of fact, I am told that the personnel includes 60 officials, which makes a further total of 7,140 hours.
There are also 125 members of the press gallery. This makes a total of 14,875 hours lost by the members of the press gallery who listened to this flag debate.
There are also the Hansard subscribers. It is said that they number 12,000 for the English version and 4,000 for the French version, that is a total of 16,000. If you multiply that number by 119 hours, supposing that the subscribers read Hansard, you get 1,905,000 lost hours.
We have now reached 1,958,555 hours.


Yvon Dupuis: What about those who read the papers?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, supposing
that six million people spend an average of
20220-691J
Canadian Flag
five minutes a day reading what is said about the flag-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I listened with great attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe and I must admit that I have serious doubts about their relevancy.
The hon. member might perhaps tell me how the statistics he is quoting are related to the proposed amendment now before the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I feel that in mentioning the cost, or the eventual cost of holding a plebiscite in Canada, the hon. member for Lapointe is strictly in order when discussing the Conservative amendment with regard to a plebiscite. It would be an ideal way of allowing the Canadian citizens to express their opinion. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Lapointe is being relevant in speaking of the cost in time and money of holding a plebiscite in Canada.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: To the extent that the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe will be connected with the matter under consideration, in the way indicated by the hon. member for Villeneuve, they will certainly be relevant.


Gilles Grégoire: Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I have learned to distinguish between sophisms and syllogisms, I have learned that with syllogisms one can argue in two ways, either by induction or by deduction. Today, my argumentation is quite simple, I proceed by induction. That is why, in the light of the figures I am going to quote, you will notice that the conclusion will be drawn automatically and that is why I shall keep on quoting those figures.
Mention has been made of newspapers. If we take for granted that about six million people take an average of five minutes a day to read what is published on the flag issue, this amounts to 140 minutes for 28 days. Six million people reading an average of 140 minutes amount to 840 million minutes, or 14 million hours.
If we consider now the news bulletins on radio and television, which take an average of ten minutes a day-it is more, but let us assume it is ten minutes. This amounts to 280 minutes in 28 days. With a minimum average of six million listeners and viewers, this amounts to 1,680 million minutes or 28 million hours.
We now have, Mr. Speaker, a grand total of 43,958,555 hours on the flag issue.

Canadian Flag
If the average salary is $3 per hour, up to now the flag debate has cost $131,875,650.


Mr, Dupuis:: At the least.


Gilles Grégoire: At the least, Mr. Speaker.
Up to now there has been spent $131,875, 650 on the flag, not to mention interest. Those figures only represent lost time.
Let us figure out the cost of materials. In the official report appear about 1,200 written pages on the flag issue. Now, with two columns to each page and an average of 62 lines to a column, this makes 124 lines for every page of Hansard.
I found that each line measures 2f inches, or a total of 30 feet per page. Since each page contains 341 inches or 30 feet of text, for 1,200 pages this makes 37,500 feet, or 7 miles of text. You get on the Queensway, you leave it at the other end, and the text on the flag is still running.
If you consider that there are 1,048 words per page, you get a staggering total for 1,200 pages. All that about the flag; 1,257,600 words spoken about the flag.
Mr. Speaker, you will agree that no one can ever complain that freedom of speech- freedom of repetition and freedom of obsession for madmen-does not exist in the House of Commons.
And now multiply all that: the number of pages, the amount of energy, the amount of calories burnt for the flag, the number of hours, the amount of dollars, and divide that by whatever you want, you will come to a single conclusion, that some lunatics are still walking about.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Some are standing.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, 18 members of the Conservative party each spoke three times. Eighteen hat tricks during the same season, that is almost a record. Two spoke four times, and that is an even more impressive record.
I would like to apply to the members of the Conservative party the sentence which was uttered by the Greek hero at the Thermo-pyles, and I will quote the Greek text in order to simplify things:
Ou kataiskuno opla ta iera
Oud'en kataleipsd ton parastatein
Oto'an slokeiso
Mr. Speaker, that is the Conservative party, and I am not afraid of saying so to their face.


Yvon Dupuis: Translation please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to parody a vituperous statement made by Cicero

in his famed Catiline Orations where he was attacking Catilina, the Roman despot. By substituting the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) for that of Catilina, I would say, with Cicero:
Quo usque tandem abutere Diefenbaker, pa-tientia, nostra?
Quamdiu etiam iste furor tuus nos eludet?
Quemquem ad finem sese effrenata jactabit audacia?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Yvon Dupuis: There are two official languages here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member concluded his remarks?
The Chair cannot determine whether his last words were intended to close his remarks or not.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe knows that rather serious difficulties could arise during the discussions in this house should the hon. members be allowed to speak in another language than the two official languages of the country, for instance in Greek or Latin.


Gilles Grégoire: I will translate each sentence:
Quo usque tandem abutere Diefenbaker pa-tientia nostra?
To what extent will you, Diefenbaker, abuse our patience?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi raises his point of order I would say that even if the hon. member for Lapointe is quoting in Latin, he should know that he cannot refer to any hon. member by name and should refer to him by his constituency; and in the case of the Leader of the Opposition, I suggest by his title.


William Heward Grafftey: That is right.


Gilles Grégoire: Since it went so well with the text; it was rolling out-
I shall translate it, Mr. Speaker.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Diefenbaker, patien-tia nostra?
To what extent will you, Diefenbaker, abuse our patience?
Quamdiu etiam iste furor tuus nos eludet?
How much longer will thy furor make game of us?

Quemquem ad finem sese effrenata jactabit audacia?
To what extremity will thy unrestrained boldness let itself be carried away?
That is a text, Mr. Speaker, which really applies to present circumstances.
If I may, I shall make a French quotation which will also apply perfectly to the situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hope that the quotation the hon. member intends to make will be relevant to the discussion.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a quotation by Corneille. In Corneille's The Cid, Don Diegue, in his old days, speaks out his bitterness, his rage, when he cries out:
0	rage, 6 desespoir, 6 vieillesse ennemie,
n'ai-je done vecu durant tant d'annees que
pour voir
en un jour fletrir tant de lauriers.
That applies well to the Leader of the Opposition: rage, bitterness, implacable old age, those are the incitements behind the actions now taken by the Leader of the Opposition.
That is why we have a debate like the one that is going on today: 43,958,550 hours. That is where the Conservative party is leading us; $131,875,550; that is what it costs. Enough words, if laid end to end, to cover the trans-Canada highway, from coast to coast. You will admit, Mr. Speaker, that this must have lasted long enough.
1	do not know whether the Conservatives will understand, but they have spoken at length, more than freedom of speech should allow generally; this is not freedom, but abuse, a tremendous abuse of the freedom of speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In my opinion, the present remarks of the hon. member are not really related to the matter under discussion, namely the amendment to the motion now before us.
I would ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to that matter.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I will close with four verses by Frangois Villon which express exactly my idea on the plebiscite we are now discussing, and through which the whole Canadian population would vote on a flag proposal. In my opinion, the request is for something which is unnecessary. There are here representatives of the voters. Let everyone take his responsibilities and vote according to the wishes of his constituents.
Canadian Flag
The four following verses of Frangois Villon illustrate quite well my thought:
Dans un vieux cimetiere.
Un fossoyeur creusait,
II fit jaillir de terre un crane qui dormait.
"En veux-tu du vieux frere" me dit-il, mais je refusai.
This is an example of the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. As the grave-digger, he tries to dig up in an old cemetery the traditions of other countries and he offers me a skull, but I am not interested.
I am ready to accept something new for our country, something which would really represent Canada and not a foreign country, something which would give us a little more pride in the future of our country, that is a really distinctive flag which we could call our flag and would not be the fleur-de-lis or the union jack. It would be the flag of Canadians living in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of incurring your censure but in the spirit of the remarks that have been permitted this afternoon and the personalities engaged therein, I might say that the braying of jackasses is the loudest noise heard in the barnyard. Also may I say that there are no fools like those who laugh at themselves.

I am speaking here to those who might seek to hold a certain power of veto over us and prevent us from expressing our views. Every hon. member has the right to express his opinion in the house and without commenting on the vote we have just had, this afternoon, it is obvious that opinions are divided here on the issue, both on the government side and the opposition side. We have not failed to notice it.
At the beginning of the debate on the motion which gave rise to this discussion, the Prime Minister agreed to a free vote on the flag issue. Consequently, we are all free to express our feelings.
I find it strange that certain young parliamentarians should be willing to muzzle anyone, since there are differences of opinion. I grant them the right to stand up and discuss this matter. After all, the debate centres in this assembly. Since opinions differ, we are here to express them.

Canadian Flag
I can well say to the hon. members that, on a tour in my native province over the week end, I realized again that opinions vary greatly-


Vincent Drouin: Might I ask the hon. member a question at this point.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will allow the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes to ask a question later on, when I have completed my remarks.

I make no apology, Mr. Speaker, for speaking on this question this afternoon. It may be that some people feel this debate on the flag has exhausted the supply of ready headlines or that there is no juicy scandal to uncover or discuss, and it might have been interesting to have had orders of the day last week, or even this week.


Mr. Rinfret:: More insinuations.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not saying there are; the hon. member can read the newspapers for himself. I think the suppression of the opportunity of clearing the air in this regard creates more slander and scandal if that is the case.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps at this stage he would want to return to the subject matter of this debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the Chair for having been provoked into a minor excursion, shall I say, but hon. members, in so provoking me, are breaking the rules themselves, of course. They have no right to speak; therefore if their remarks appear on the record I am sure the Chair would grant me a certain latitude in challenging them.
I would have thought the situation was clear to those people who, because they are in favour of a certain proposal, say this debate is finished, that there is no further need to speak. They say "I have spoken. I am in favour. Therefore those of you who are against this have no right to speak".


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You have spoken three times.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I beg to differ with the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I have spoken fewer times in this debate than he has. This is my second opportunity since the resolution was introduced. I also hope to make this my last contribution.
Coming from where I do, and with my own personal ancestry, I think this matter calls for the expression of the individual's point of view. To me the flag of my country is

something more than an amendment to the customs tariff or the discussion of a redistribution bill. Perhaps I am completely different in this regard from other hon. members, but that is the way I feel. I have always indicated that I felt this question from its inception should have been approached by asking the people of Canada for a personal expression. After all, a flag which is imposed on the people will not be one which is readily acceptable. This flag is not born out of revolution. It is not a symbol of revolution. This flag is a symbol of agreement, and I think there is a clear distinction.
Many people ask why Canada could not emulate some of the new countries, or our great neighbour to the south. Their flag was adopted out of revolution. The majority of the new flags we see today have been adopted out of the granting of independence which is akin to revolution. In respect to some of them one might also question whether, if the people had been given the opportunity, they would have challenged the design of their flag.
I would have thought this matter could easily have been resolved by a plebiscite, as was suggested in another debate, so that people are not identified and we do not point the finger at this or that region. In this matter I consider that no region is preeminent; I consider western Canada just as important as central Canada, the maritimes or any portion of the country. No one has pre-eminence in this regard. Therefore the views of the people from one end of Canada to the other stand on equality. I find it passing strange that in arriving at a design for a national flag a large part of the Canadian people must divest themselves of symbols which they cherish and hold dear.
I am not making a case for any particular flag or any particular design. It is my feeling that the flag of Canada can only be that which is accepted by the people and not that which is accepted by a majority here, because respect for a flag cannot be generated by the iron heel of a dictum. Acceptability on the part of the people of Canada can only result from desire and respect.
I do not think there is any difference in the application of my argument to the Canadian flag and the Canadian national anthem. It could only be ill conceived that the people of Canada would faithfully and conscientiously sing a national anthem which they did not respect in their hearts. Only as an aside, Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely regrettable that we did not deal with the resolution

relating to the national anthem, about which I think there is general agreement, before dealing with the Canadian national flag, so the national anthem would now be settled and not be the subject of a prospective debate in an atmosphere which has now been created by a divisive expression of opinion.
The plebiscite as suggested by the amendment, to be held at the time of the next general election, whenever that may be, to facilitate administrative details, after a cooling-off period, would not generate the divisive atmosphere which some people fear. I believe that if Canadians were given a chance to express their opinions they would accept the flag chosen by the people, even though they did not agree with the choice. A choice made by a generous majority of the people of Canada I am sure would be accepted by the minority favouring a different design.
I do not intend to deal with the nature of the design now before us, though it certainly can be related to the plebiscite advocated by the amendment and is the result of a majority choice by a committee which has considered this question conscientiously. However, what may be one man's meat may be another man's poison, and I am not qualified to say to my neighbour that I am choosing a flag for him. In respect of that sort of thing I feel the people should have the right to express an opinion.
It was announced last week that we in this chamber may have to make a decision on the matter of capital punishment at some time in the future. Surely that is a matter which must be decided as a result of the dictates of one's conscience. It may be a matter that some hon. members feel their constituents should decide. Be that as it may, I think the flag question is one which goes even deeper into considerations of conscience. I think it must be concluded logically that the motives of individuals who enlisted voluntarily for service during the last war, and on other occasions, are the same motives behind the feelings of citizens for their own flag. This feeling is sometimes very inchoate and difficult to define.
I do not wish to attempt to repeat the arguments which have been made by many hon. members in this house on this and on previous occasions, but a plebiscite would provide a tremendous advantage to the members of this house in the choice of a distinctive Canadian flag. I respect the opinions of hon. members who have stated they desire a particular flag, though I have some grave
Canadian Flag
doubts as to whether those members who talk about a distinctive flag know exactly what they mean. Some members in their speeches in this house have gone so far as to suggest that they would be prepared to accept a tic-tac-toe on a dishcloth design, providing there was no vestige of the union jack on it. That is a very regrettable attitude.
It is difficult for me to understand why anyone who has had the opportunity of serving abroad, and who has observed the Canadian flag as it now is, as declared by order in council, would feel that it is not distinctively Canadian and something of which all Canadians can be proud. I certainly have observed this flag flying in foreign countries and must say that I have always looked upon it in those circumstances as the flag of Canada. If parliament-and by parliament I mean this house and the other place-should decide, by the appropriate means, that this flag shall be changed and that something else shall be the flag of Canada, such a decision would not preclude the parliament of Canada from consulting with the people of Canada about the precise design they favour for a distinctively Canadian national flag. I am not referring to a symbol of Canada but a Canadian national flag, and for that reason I say again that a plebiscite is both logical and the proper thing under the circumstances.
In speaking at this time I find it difficult to determine how a vote on the motion to adopt this report, should it carry, could in any way change the present order in council. Great emphasis was placed on this point when the flag question was first introduced because, as stated by the order in council, the red ensign shall be Canada's flag until parliament declares otherwise. This is the first time of which I am aware that there has ever been the slightest suggestion that the House of Commons alone is parliament. One can see that there may be a very difficult procedural argument in relation to legislation being sent to the other place as the result of a committee report. Of course we have not had any disclosure of the government's intention in this regard. The approval of a committee report while there are other matters on the order paper would seem to me to be insufficient to ground any change in that order in council.
I find some difficulty also in communicating the wishes and desires of this house to the other place on the basis of merely a motion for concurrence in a report. This is by way of digression, I realize, in so far as the amend-

Canadian Flag
ment is concerned, but I believe I should raise the point at this time if others have not done so already. There are many other things I would have liked to mention which this house could have been discussing at this time. I am not going to do so, Mr. Speaker, except by saying that the order paper is chock-a-block with very important matters on which ministers of the crown are anxiously awaiting approval. But it has been their responsibility to introduce these questions in priority to this other matter. It is not a case of the opposition seeking a debate on this matter. The government must accept this responsibility for having advanced this matter and put forward a timetable. Therefore, I say very definitely-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but I am sure he will agree with me that this is a digression, and that he is not really relating his remarks at this time to the matter before us.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If government members accuse the opposition of delay, Mr. Speaker, and also a discussion of the plebiscite, the opposition has offered an alternative to the vote for concurrence. Certainly I would put it to Your Honour that a reference this way to these matters which might be occupying the house is quite as much in order as the speech which preceded me and which was permitted. I do not like to suggest that the Chair is making a differentiation, but there has been a considerable latitude indicated. I do not know that the speech which preceded had any more reference to a plebiscite, except that there was a sort of exercise in Social Credit mathematics of the kind that has been rejected out of hand for many years. It has been rejected because it has never been a matter of government policy at any time in the provinces where this so-called political theory may have held sway. The hon. members down there speak from their seats and that indicates the extent of their contribution.
Now, I would say again in bringing my remarks to a close-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I hope that hon. members who are interested in speaking on something will be given the liberty of speaking. When it comes to the remarks that preceded mine, I trust that the house will be as forbearing when these hon. gentlemen embark upon their lengthy discourses on monetary theory. I find it very interesting to see the forbearance of the house when these hon. members are

speaking on certain bills during private members' hour, at which time we get barrel full after barrel full of nonsense. I suppose it is a question of which foot the shoe is upon. As long as they feel disposed to speak, then their digestion will tell them they have that right; but as long as someone else is speaking their digestion may curdle and tell them that the debate must be brought to an end. However this is a matter of give and take and I trust that they will be able to give as well as take.
Again I say that in my opinion the solution out of this impasse in which we find ourselves is to have a plebiscite, to give the people the opportunity to make a choice. After all, we have had many suggestions from on high. We have seen many newspapers, radio and television comments, each man having the right to express himself. If a news editor has every freedom to write as many times as he wishes in a newspaper column, then I have a right to reply in this house. Why then should hon. members be accused of carrying on an interminable debate? Debate is the exchange of ideas, the putting forward of ideas, sometimes not only once or twice, but three times. If certain people write on a certain subject and put forward the same idea many times over in an effort to convince their readers or their listeners, I think that this is legitimate. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment and urge upon hon. members that they support it.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Surely.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: On July 2, 1964, I had an opportunity to speak about the plebiscite; I then asked the opposition why it was that in 1961, when the opposition suggested that the government in office hold a referendum on the flag at the time of the decennial census, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) rejected this procedure, but today he suggests what seems to him an easier procedure, that is holding the referendum at the same time as a general election.
I put that question and I did not get an answer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I shall answer that I do not know in which circumstances the hon. member asked his question.
I believe that, at that time, I was in the chair just as you are now and that I was not interested then in the contents of the debates.

But, in answer to the question put by the hon. member, I would say-if I understand his question well-that he suggested to hold a referendum on the flag issue at the time of the census. Since he received no answer, I am unable to comment on it, but I wonder whether, in the circumstances, the census legislation allows such a referendum.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Through an amendment to the legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps with an amendment to the act, a referendum might have been possible, but I do not know whether we did something along those lines before. It may be also that the way the hon. member made his suggestion was the right procedure, but I do not think he can say now that he was denied an answer because an answer has never been given to him.


Yvon Dupuis: Would the hon. member allow me another question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I see that the Minister
without Portfolio is back from his trip.


Yvon Dupuis: Would the hon. member not agree that during the six years of Conservative administration, the present Leader of the Opposition had all the time required to propose a referendum or to agree to the request of the Conservative member for St. Boniface who had suggested to his own government a referendum on that issue? Why did the Conservative government, which had the power to do so, not comply with the request of the hon. member for St. Boniface?
We know that that suggestion was rejected or considered of little interest and, besides, the bill I myself introduced in the house proposed an amendment to the census legislation so that the opportunity of the census could be taken to put the question respecting a new distinctive flag and a distinctive national anthem.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, in answering the minister's second question, I will reply in part to the hon. member who directed the first question to me, namely that in the case of questions asked at a census, it is extremely difficult to keep secret the identity of the person invited to make his or her choice on such a thing.


Yvon Dupuis: Answer the first part of the question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As far as the first question is concerned, I will say this. There were so many shortcomings in the business of the
Canadian Flag
country when we came into office that we centered all our energies on farm and other programs in order to improve the national economy.


Yvon Dupuis: That was in 1961, and I asked why-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the Minister without Portfolio that we are not in committee and that the hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will answer briefly by saying this. At that time-this is a personal opinion-there was less unanimity than today and we have seen considerable changes in the last five years.
The minister knows very well that before he became a minister, he had not travelled much in the country and that I travelled much more than he.


Yvon Dupuis: That is a gratuitous statement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps I did not travel as much as he did, since he was absent for long months.


Yvon Dupuis: Do not let jealousy get the better of you, my friend.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On the other hand, I might say that in another four or five years, the atmosphere will be very different indeed. To illustrate the point, I might say that, with regard to the anthem "O Canada", the attitude throughout the country has thoroughly changed in the last ten years, of which fact, there is every evidence. I might say the same thing with regard to bilingual cheques. It took a little time to convince the public.
That is my answer to the hon. member.


Yvon Dupuis: I might just point out that my hon. friend did not answer my question.


Vincent Drouin: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Go ahead.


Vincent Drouin: Inasmuch as a few moments ago the hon. member was in favour of adjourning this debate, did he not indicate in this way that the discussion had lasted long enough, and does he not think it appropriate to put the substance of the matter to the vote, so that all hon. members may express their views?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like it to be clearly understood that the adjournment of a discussion is by no means the end of that discussion, as the hon. member knows very well-

Canadian Flag
It is just a matter of deferring a question in favour of more significant issues.
If the hon. member showed more interest in the legislation on the order paper, he would support the amendment relating to the adjournment of this discussion so that we might consider other matters provided therein.


Vincent Drouin: That is not an answer.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment I must at once say that the remarks I shall make are my own and I accept full responsibility for them. Though my colleagues may not agree with what I have to say, there is one thing they do agree with, and that is my right to say it. I intend to present some arguments in favour of sending the report back to the flag committee, and in doing so I hope to deal with the various phases of the whole question. Also I hope to relate my arguments and statements to the question of a plebiscite.
First of all, I would like to refer to the remarks I made on the flag question in the debate on the speech from the throne on February 27 last, which are recorded at page 315 of Hansard for that day:
I should like to make a few remarks about this business of a national flag. We really get into deep water when we start talking about a national flag. I realize that. I think the solution lies in having a committee set up that will choose perhaps four or five designs out of the some 2,500 or 2,900 designs that have been submitted, and put these on a ballot. They should include the red ensign, and should be put to a referendum of the people, with a transferable vote, so that each individual would choose the first, second, third, fourth and fifth in the order he preferred and, by the process of elimination, we will then have over 50 per cent of the people voting in favour of a particular flag. That will take all of us off the hook and put the responsibility where it belongs, on the shoulders of the people.
I should like to enlarge on this suggestion by saying that in addition to holding a plebiscite the votes recorded in it should be sent to a central point, preferably the city of Ottawa, for counting. In this way there would be no way of knowing in which region any particular vote was cast. There would be no way of telling who voted for a particular flag and there would be no evidence of regionalization. If this method were adopted I believe we would get a flag supported by the votes of possibly 85 per cent of the population.
The transferable ballot in a plebiscite is not something new. As a matter of fact for a

number of years it was used in general elections in the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Prittie:: Until you got in.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Someone says until I got in, but I did not get in; I am down here.


Robert William Prittie: Until your party got in and
cancelled it.


Bert Raymond Leboe: There were reasons for that but I do not think they have anything to do with the flag debate.
If we proceed to hold a plebiscite in that way we will get the true feeling of the people, and I am of the opinion that the result of a plebiscite would have much more permanence than the procedure we are following now because a new government could easily change the design again, and that is a point which should not be forgotten. It has been said that the youth of the country want a new flag. If so, 18 year olds and over should be allowed to vote in the plebiscite.
Some people say a new government would not follow the procedure we are following today, but I would remind the house it is the tame bull that kills the farmer. It is not hard to imagine that a new government under new leadership might wish to give the people of Canada the democratic right which is being denied to them under the procedure which is being followed today.
I am of the opinion that the whole approach to the flag question to this date has been negative. This is another reason why a plebiscite should be held. It is my sincere belief that the purpose of bringing about this debate is to eliminate the union jack from the present flag. In my view this is a completely negative approach and I am certainly not in favour of such an approach.
Those who are supporting the stand against a plebiscite may be saying: If we get rid of the union jack we get rid of crosses which stand for Christian principles; we shall eliminate them from our symbols entirely; we shall find ourselves in the position where there are no crosses in our flag, no symbols to represent the Christian principles for which we stand. Those individuals who wish to see the union jack disappear from our flag may well be saying: There will be no symbols to remind us of British justice; we are now building up for ourselves in this house and in the country a new type of justice so we do not need to rely on traditional British justice. There is our democratic origin to be considered. We know that the birthplace of democracy is the place over which the

union jack is flying. This is an emotional and a personal issue. What are we doing when we eliminate the union jack from our flag under the procedure being followed today? We are denying the people of Canada a democratic right in accordance with the traditions they inherited from Britain. Are we setting aside the democracy of old for a new type which denies people the right to say what they want in certain circumstances which involve a personal matter? This, in my view, is exactly what we are doing. We are eliminating the crosses. We are eliminating the memory of British justice; we are eliminating the memory of true democracy.
One of my hon. friends said to me the other day he did not like the idea of a plebiscite because the red ensign would win. Maybe he is right. I do not think any of us know what design would win; we cannot be sure until or unless a vote is taken on this question. I believe everybody has the right to stand up in the House of Commons and give their personal opinions. One would suspect, from reading the newspapers, that there would be many more opinions expressed from speakers on the other side of the house. In refusing to yield to the request for a plebiscite the government, according to polls, is frustrating the will of 68 per cent of the people of Canada.
I could not help recalling a television program the other night in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) used some high-sounding phrases about a code of ethics for cleansing the inner sanctum. But I want to say to him as plainly as I can that the procedure which has been followed and the action which has been taken on this flag question will make the spectre in the Department of Justice look like an angel. I am convinced that the procedure being followed today is a deplorable procedure and that the people, if denied a plebiscite, will recognize it as such when the time comes for them to cast their ballots. Of this there is no question in my mind: You cannot deprive the people of this country of the right to express themselves, because there comes a time under the constitution when the people have this right whether we like it or not. Their voices will be heard. But I do not think it is altogether wise to hold a plebiscite on this matter at the time of the election. Why should we not do this at a more appropriate time instead of on an occasion when the issue is confused by the consideration of other issues and when many people, voting as they will vote, will be depriving themselves of the opportunity to vote in
Canadian Flag
favour of some good program which an individual may have in his platform?
I believe a plebiscite is needed to satisfy the promise made to this country that parliament, which is composed of the Senate, the House of Commons and the crown, will deal with this matter. The order in council of 1945 stated it was parliament which would deal with this question. I would remind the house of some statements made by the Prime Minister as recorded on pages 4308 and 4309 of Hansard of June 15. Remember, we are about to ask the House of Commons to concur in a report. It is my view that this is where the stumbling block lies as far as parliament is concerned. This hope of settling the question in parliament is associated with the request for a plebiscite. As reported on page 4308, the right hon. gentleman says: Until such time as action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag . . . the red ensign may be flown.
He is quoting from the order in council of 1945. Later the Prime Minister went on:
I proposed in that statement on January 27, 1960, the submission by government to parliament of a measure which, if accepted by representatives of the people in parliament, would, I hoped, settle the problem of a national flag by agreement on a distinctive design which, unlike the red ensign-a flag never given formal sanction by parliament-could not be confused with certain United Kingdom or colonial flags and which was easily identifiable as Canadian.
Note, that he said he hoped this would settle the problem. He knew that the procedure which is being followed would not necessarily do so. As for the proposed flag being distinctive, I wonder if he would like to fly the flag of Peru alongside the design we are now considering and see just how distinctive it is. Further, it is not the flag that makes a country; it is the country that makes a flag. Later on, the Prime Minister stated:
I do feel, however, that there should be a Canadian national flag which could not be mistaken for the emblem of any other country-
He was quoting from a letter he had sent out to various people. What a joke. A flag has been offered to us which is so like the flag of Peru that it is difficult to tell the difference between them. The statement went on:
-and which, by its acceptance, would be a strong unifying force in our country.
Is this what we have found out in the course of the present debate-that this is a strong unifying force? I say to you, Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canadian Flag
Speaker, that it is anything but that. Here is another quotation:
A Liberal government will establish a distinctive Canadian flag-
He had been saying previously that parliament would establish this flag, but as reported at page 4308 of Hansard he said:
A Liberal government will establish a distinctive Canadian flag within two years of taking office.
Is this what is happening today? Certainly it is what is happening. It is not parliament that is being asked to deal with this problem, in my view. The Prime Minister is carrying out this commitment; but he is not doing what he said previously he would do. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say that we need a plebiscite to get us out of the position we are in. Parliament is the House of Commons, the Senate and the crown. I am confronted with the moral obligation which I have quoted from the pages of Hansard, namely that the Prime Minister must allow parliament-that is, the House of Commons, the Senate and the crown-to deal with this matter. I believe that the way we can get out of this dilemma is by holding a plebiscite, with the result of the vote of that plebiscite being given by the chief electoral officer to the Senate of this country so they may introduce a measure in this respect-as spoken of by the Prime Minister himself-a measure that can be concurred in by the Senate, the House of Commons and the crown. Therefore parliament would act on this question. I have heard it suggested that another order in council may be passed to annul the order in council of 1945. I say that if this happens, the whole argument has no foundation; we should not be dealing with the question at all.
I believe the question should be referred to a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. In my opinion the Senate of this country ought to be in on these deliberations. Such a committee could choose a number of good designs including the present Canadian flag. I believe that an example of a design that could very well be acceptable under these circumstances and submitted in a plebiscite is the one suggested to me by the hon. member for Halifax. This was a very simple design in which the three maple leaves took the place of the union jack, and the union jack was placed on the shield in the present position of the three maple leaves. Nothing would be taken from the present flag, nothing would be added; only the prominence of the union jack would be 
changed with that of the three maple leaves. In my view this is one good design that could be submitted in a plebiscite. Instead of that this matter was placed before a committee that was frozen from the very beginning. As many hon. members of this house know, it was a joke around the House of Commons, after the flag committee was formed, that they knew immediately what the end result was going to be. What did we accomplish in that particular committee? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is another reason why we should hold a plebiscite on this matter and submit a number of designs to the Canadian people. The House of Commons and the Senate could provide a committee that would give us those designs, and we would therefore be fulfilling our obligation in passing them on to the people of this country in a plebiscite.
What did we do in this flag committee? We took the three maple leaves and replaced them with one maple leaf. This got the Prime Minister off the hook; it was no longer the Pearson pennant. But then the flag committee was immediately confronted with another problem; they now had the flag suggested by the members of the New Democratic party. So what happened? We folded, like a television camera, the three maple leaves into one and turned the blue bars into red. That is all we did. Basically it was the same design as that with which we started. That is all the flag committee accomplished, Mr. Speaker. In concluding my remarks I want to say that any individual in this country knows as much about what he wants in regard to a flag as does any member of parliament. But this is not true with regard to legislation that comes before this House of Commons. In the case of legislation we are able to carry out a certain amount of research-not as much as we would like to carry out, by any means-and we are able to listen to the speeches of people in the House of Commons who perhaps have more research facilities. In this way we are able to judge the matter from the experience of many members of this house who have a great deal of knowledge of the matter under discussion. But on the question of a flag, any person on the street knows just as much about the flag as you, Mr. Speaker, myself or anyone else; it is a very personal and emotional problem. Therefore I say that we should take advantage of holding a plebiscite on this question. I am also convinced that the backbenchers of the Liberal party would be doing

their leader and the frontbenchers a very good service if they would rise and support a plebiscite and take their leader off the hook.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief in my remarks but I welcome the chance to make it clear that my views have not changed since I spoke on this matter last summer. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) this afternoon gave us a great dissertation on wasting time. He should have said this to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who introduced this whole flag question and the debate in the first place. However, the hon. member's harangue to my mind did not make any more sense in Latin or Greek than it would have in French or English. This man has been carrying on a one-man filibuster for days now. For example, 1 was looking through the first pages of yesterday's Hansard and saw that on those few pages he had 21 entries-and he accuses us of filibustering. None of us on this side can tie that record, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Don't make me laugh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Pay your phone bill.


Harry Andrew Moore: In support of a plebiscite I would like to present what I consider to be the main reason for holding one. In attempting to force certain flag designs on the people the government is completely ignoring those who want to retain the flag we have had for many years, or at least some symbols from it. To be fair I would point out that one man on the government side is attempting to retain the symbols, and I give him full credit for that. We heard a very fine speech from the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) this afternoon and we realize that some hon. members in other parties are also attempting to do this.
Many speeches have been made in this debate by members from Quebec. Those members are practically all, if not entirely all, in favour of a new or different flag, regardless of the party to which they belong. I respect their views because it is obvious they are trying to present the views of their constituents. Regardless of the views of their party, these members at least have spoken for their people, and no one can quarrel with that; it is political honesty. But what about the members of the government; have they been as honest? In my opinion they definitely have not. Many of them speak, of course, from their seats; but they do not rise-with few excep-
Canadian Flag
tions-and tell us what their constituents want. We should certainly like the reasons for the abandonment of the flag which we now have for something else, or for what appears to be anything else. It does not seem to make much difference as long as we abandon the flag we have. I am sure the constituents of hon. members opposite would be very interested to hear what they have to say on this matter. It is natural that some constituents always like to criticize their member, and I do not think they should be robbed of this pleasure. But how can they criticize their member if they do not know what he thinks about an emotional issue?
It is surprising that many young people feel the need for a plebiscite, although I have heard statements to the contrary. The boy scouts magazine polled a number of boy scouts on this issue, and boy scouts are a fine example of young Canadians. The result showed that over 50 per cent of them wanted the red ensign. Over 35 per cent, I must admit, wanted the three maple leaf flag, but everyone has forgotten about it now. Less than 15 per cent wanted a one maple leaf flag.
The need for a plebiscite has been mentioned in various publications throughout the country. I should like to put on the record only those excerpts from these clippings which deal with a plebiscite. For example, the Rural Co-Op for May 12, 1964 carries the heading "Does majority or minority rule?", and in connection with the flag question has this to say:
How many quiet responsible Canadians want a new flag-brand new with no traditions behind it? Or a new national anthem? Until that fact is established all the hollering about a Canadian flag and a Canadian anthem is just that: a lot of hollering by extremely vocal persons who must have something to holler about . . .
Only a referendum can show whether a majority of Canadians want a change-or whether we are subject to rule by the loudest shouters.
Here is another clipping from the Daily Colonist, Victoria, B.C., entitled: "It's a label, not a flag". I refer only to the part which deals with a plebiscite. This article says:
The flag, which traditionally expresses our pride and our freedom, is being taken away without the consent of the majority of the people. Mr. Pearson could resolve this by a national plebiscite . . .
The flag is a basic issue and should be resolved not by an election, not by mere politics, but by a national vote in itself, for itself.
Lastly, this is a clipping from the Toronto Telegram for August 2, 1964, an excerpt from an article entitled, "Ask the people":

Canadian Flag
The voice of the people can he heard, on this issue, only through a national plebiscite.
Then it goes on to mention that the flag issue is different from a political issue.
In my opinion, the idea behind sending this problem to a committee was to obtain a compromise. But we did not get one; what we got was another label similar to the three maple leaves which was suggested at the time the committee was set up. It is my understanding that the committee had the chance to come up with a compromise which contained the symbols of both founding races. This was mentioned this afternoon. One of the three final choices bore the symbols of both founding races, but this was overlooked. That is why I say the committee did not come up with a compromise when it had the chance. I would have accepted this choice because it was a compromise. The Canadian coat of arms contains the symbols of four founding races, but this was ignored.
What do I consider to be a compromise when I speak of compromise? We have, you might say, the two extremes. We have, on the one hand, the strong supporters of the previously recommended three maple leaf flag; on the other hand we have those who support the red ensign. If we are to reach a compromise we must put something of both races on any compromise flag which is recommended by a committee, and I maintain that no symbol of the red ensign is on the flag proposed by this committee. To those who say that a plebiscite would disunite the country, I concede only that it should not show regional results. Only by showing regional results might disunity be caused. But a plebiscite would get this government out of a bad spot.
This Liberal government has shown that it does not care what is the design of a new flag so long as it does away with any symbols of our heritage. That is so obvious that this point does not need enlarging upon. The whole flag idea was brought forward last summer just before a summer recess in the hope that the house would pass it. If that had been so, of course then we would have been given a recess. Once again now, before the Christmas recess, there is the same hope. This is a typical example of the government's political manoeuvring. We are told: "Pass it, or no Christmas recess". Perhaps they have not said that in so many words, but we get the idea. This does not sound to me like real democracy in action.
The other day the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston) spoke on the question of

symbols in connection with his support for a plebiscite. He delivered an interesting and well prepared speech. There has been a tendency lately in this country to do away with symbols. The same tendency exists to do away with pleasing art. A prime example of this is the monstrosities of so-called modern art which we have in our Canadian air terminal buildings. To me this is evidence of a sick society, and this is the sort of thing which seems to get support from this government.
Why should we consult the people through a plebiscite? Who asked for a new flag in the first place? This was not the promise I heard, Mr. Speaker, in the last election campaign in my part of the country at any rate. What I heard were promises of $2 wheat. I even heard the promise of $3 wheat; that is $3 for the first 300 bushels that a farmer produces. Then there were promises of giving the country two ministers of agriculture. But I heard no promise about a flag. We sometimes wonder now how many ministers of agriculture we do have.


Mr. Slogan:: Three.


Harry Andrew Moore: Someone says three, but some say none. I did not notice the government being anxious to keep these promises and these were the promises in which the people in my area were most interested.
I mentioned a few minutes ago the members from Quebec, and I do not think I was hard on them. These members obviously want a new flag. But I would ask them, and I would ask others who say a plebiscite is not necessary, to consult their constituents as to whether they would rather have a new flag which perhaps would divide Canada-and I think they are all aware of this-or that we spent our time giving them some much needed assistance in their problems. Have these members asked this of the eastern farmers, whose incomes are so meagre? Strangely enough, we see today the symbols of Christmas on the office doors of many hon. members as well as inside their offices, and this is very fine. But I notice that these are on the office doors of the very members who want to do away with symbols. How do they justify acceptance of traditional Christmas symbols while at the same time rejecting those traditional symbols on the flag? That certainly does not make sense in my opinion.
In conclusion I would urge the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, to give some consideration to those Canadians who

do not agree with the Prime Minister in his desire to remove the Christian crosses from our flag by Christmas.


Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate in order to put forward some of my views about the necessity for holding a plebiscite across Canada to decide this issue for once and for all. I am sure it is the feeling of most people in Canada that a plebiscite is the only means by which this issue can be settled. It is also my belief that the majority of the people in Canada do not have a desire to change our flag.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is the one man in Canada who, as head of this government, has a feeling that we should have a new flag, and is in a position to at least attempt to push it through the house and force it upon the people. In western Canada we often use the expression "taking the bull by the horns," and I believe that is exactly what the Prime Minister is attempting to do in forcing this change upon the Canadian people who, like the members of this party, will not accept such a change.
There is no urgency for a new flag, as evidenced by events which have taken place since last summer when the flag issue was first introduced. In June, as I remember, there was an attempt to rush the new flag design through by July 1 so that it could be hoisted at that time. I need not remind hon. members that that did not take place. The next urgent deadline was the time of the Queen's visit to Canada. The Prime Minister, and I presume government members, hoped to be able to hoist the new flag when the Queen was visiting Canada, but again that was not possible. The Prime Minister has now set a new date for the hoisting of a new flag, and is in hopes that this can take place before Christmas. I suggest one of the Prime Minister's faults in proposing this flag question lies in his continuous setting of deadlines. It must be very disappointing to him, having set two deadlines within six months, not to have at least met one of them.
It is evident by the events that have taken place in the house as a result of motions to adjourn the debate that the government members, along with the majority of other members, feel the need for greater discussion on this subject. I should like to see some government members stand in their places and tell us why we so urgently need a change in the present flag.
Canadian Flag


Mr.   Boulin@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am still wondering if the hon. member's remarks are pertinent to the amendment before us, that is whether or not we should have a plebiscite on the flag issue and the reasons for so doing?
I admit the hon. member's remarks are most interesting, but, in my opinion, they are not related to the subject under consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gelber):: I am sure the hon. member will address himself to the subject of the amendment.


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I was leading up to that subject, and was about to suggest that we have not heard from more than one government member as to why we need a change in our flag. We in this party suggest that we do not need such a change because the present accepted flag is satisfactory. In view of that fact, and the government's apparent desire to make a change, I believe we should have a plebiscite and let the people of Canada make a decision once and for all on this issue.
The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) said this afternoon that the only reason for a change in the flag lies in the fact that some people want to get rid of the union jack. I agree with that hon. member and feel that that is the only reason for a change.
There has been only one member on the other side of the house who has stood up in his place and agreed that that was the only reason for such a change. I do not believe he is the only member of the Liberal party in this house who represents a riding where the majority of constituents feel the same way. It has been very evident from the speeches made by members of other than the government party that we do not agree with them in this regard.
If one refers to a poll carried out by a western newspaper last spring he will find that at that time 82 per cent of the people contacted were in favour of retention of the red ensign. I do not believe that we must always retain the red ensign, but if there is a change I feel that we should change to a modified version of.
If we are to have a change, in order to maintain whatever unity still exists in Canada it must be the result of a plebiscite.

Canadian Flag
Invariably, many people are unhappy about the results of a general election, but they accept those results. I am sure the people of Canada would be happy to accept the feeling of the majority of the people of Canada as expressed by a plebiscite. Surely the people of Canada for the most part desire that this whole mess be cleaned up. I suggest it can be cleaned up appropriately, and in the best way possible, by holding a plebiscite, settling this matter for all time.
I should like to refer to a newspaper clipping in relation to a poll of members of parliament on the flag issue. The date is June 12, and at this time there were 120 Liberals for the proposed flag, 1 against and 2 undecided; there were two Conservatives for the flag, 72 against and 8 undecided. The New Democratic party was split with 10 for the flag, 5 against it and 2 undecided. There was 1 Creditiste for the flag, 6 against it and 4 undecided. I believe the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) pointed out last night that a poll was still being conducted with regard to the question of a plebiscite. At the moment 60 per cent of the people are in favour of a plebiscite, and I believe last June the figure was 62 per cent or 63 per cent. This is evidence of the fact that the feelings of the people have not changed, and that there should be a plebiscite.
I believe that members of parliament were sent here to legislate, to change laws, but when we are dealing with an emotional issue such as the flag everyone in Canada should have an opportunity to make his choice known. I am making it quite clear that I am going to support the amendment for a plebiscite. It is evident from what has happened since this flag debate started, and from the fact that the committee voted almost unanimously against the three maple leaf flag, that that particular flag has been set aside. I am sure the flag committee did a wonderful job of attempting to come up with a design that would appeal to the majority of people.
I have a clipping here, Mr. Speaker, and the heading on it is, "The Great Canadian Debate". I should like to put some of this on the record because I realize that the people of Canada feel this is what has taken place here. This article says that in 1892 the British admiralty created the red ensign by adding the Canadian coat of arms to the fly of the British ensign. This flag has been flown on ships registered in Canada. The article indicates that perhaps this was the start of the great Canadian flag debate, and

that was some 70 years ago. I quote from that article:
In 1918, at the Olympics in Paris, the Canadian team paraded behind a maple leaf flag devised for the occasion. Perhaps that was the first time a distinctive Canadian flag complicated the simple choice between the red ensign and the union jack.
Then, on October 1, 1945-


Pierre-André Boutin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will no doubt find me obstinate, but all the same, I would ask you to remind the hon. member who has the floor that since the present debate deals with the question as to whether or not a plebiscite should be held, the merits of a flag over another should not be discussed.
I would therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to tell the hon. member to deal with the plebiscite instead of the merits of the union jack or of any other flag.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gelber):: Yes, I would ask the hon. member for Assiniboia to direct his remarks more specifically to the amendment and the question of a plebiscite, with which we are dealing at the moment.


George Robson Muir: On the point of order, may I say that when the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) was speaking he wandered all over the place. He was never once called to order. I am sure that after what he has said the debate is wide open for anyone in this house.


Pierre-André Boutin: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have just heard, if the simultaneous translation was correct-that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) was never called to order.
I must point out that the hon. member for Lapointe was called to order at least three or four times.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gelber):: I do feel the hon. member for Assiniboia should direct more of his attention to the question of a plebiscite, the subject we are discussing at the moment.


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I was merely trying to bring out the facts in relation to the great flag debate and why we should have a plebiscite to settle it once and for all. As I was saying, in 1892 they were arguing over the flag. This is now 1964 and there are only a few days left until Christmas.

If we are going to make a decision on this matter, then hon. members should decide to hold a plebiscite and eliminate all this argument as to whether we shall have this flag or that, or whether we want a new flag at all. I think this is a question, whether we want a new flag at all. How else can a decision be made except by a plebiscite We can make a decision here, but that is not going to make the people happy. As I said before, we in this great democracy of Canada like to think that a decision involving an issue as emotional as this flag will be made by the people. I do not believe there has been such an emotional issue as the flag since I came to Ottawa. I must admit that some very emotional things occurred during the last two weeks, but they were related to a different topic and I will not become involved with that.
I should like to return to this press clipping, Mr. Speaker, because it does relate to a plebiscite. I quote:
Finance Minister J. L. Ilsley replied that the red ensign was being flown under authority of order in council P.C. 5888 and tabled a copy of the order. He added: "The red ensign flew from the tower of the houses of parliament from the days of confederation until 1904."
The order in council recalled that a 1924 order had authorized use of the ensign on Canadian buildings outside Canada-


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, once again I raise a point of order. I wonder whether the present debate is on the merits of the red ensign and the union jack or on the holding of a plebiscite?
I would like you to call again the hon. member to order and this time abide by your ruling, otherwise this will become a circus.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On that point of order I respectfully draw the attention of the Acting Speaker to the fact that we have now had three interruptions from a member of the Creditiste party. On Friday the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) interrupted proceedings in the house on 23 occasions during a two hour period. Today the hon. member for Lapointe spoke for 15 minutes on subjects that were irrelevant to the debate taking place.
We cannot have two types of rules in the house, special rules for members of the Creditiste party and more stringent rules for members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and I respectfully suggest, sir, that you ignore points of order raised by members of the Creditiste party in view of the special con-
Canadian Flag
sideration that has been given to the hon. member for Lapointe. All we ask is the same privilege in the House of Commons that is afforded to other members of the house.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, that is just like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) who, in the absence of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), musters enough courage to bring charges against him-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gelber):: Order. I think we have had enough discussion on this point of order. I would ask the hon. member for Assiniboia to direct more of his attention to the question of a plebiscite. I think there is reasonable latitude given inasmuch as, in his opinion, various aspects of the problem which he has been discussing would be solved by a plebiscite. However, I do not think that is carte blanche to go over the entire field of the Canadian flag. He should be given some latitude but I would ask him to try and direct his attention more specifically to the question of a plebiscite.


Lawrence E. Watson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to relate this to the plebiscite and I thought I had explained that to the hon. member. There is one more paragraph I think I should quote:
Premier John Smallwood of Newfoundland said, "Even if we're the last people on earth we'll continue to fly the union jack. It is first and foremost our flag in Newfoundland."
I am sure the people in Newfoundland are no different from the people in Vancouver, at the other extreme of Canada, and I am sure that if we have a national plebiscite as true Canadians they will accept the result of it.


Pierre-André Boutin: Question.


Lawrence E. Watson: The hon. member just sits there. If he would like to get up and make a speech I would gladly sit down to allow him the time; but if he is going to interrupt continually-


Auguste Choquette: He made his speech yesterday.


Lawrence E. Watson: This is an extract from another newspaper clipping:
There is a growing suspicion in the minds of Canadians that Prime Minister Pearson and his government supporters are now afraid to submit the "flag issue" to the people as a plebiscite or referendum. Having successfully split the country wide open on the issue the Liberals fear the results of a "flag vote" that would publicly record the disunity.

Canadian Flag


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Please identify the source.


Lawrence E. Watson: This is an article from the Sudbury Daily Star of August 21, 1964.


An hon. Member:: That is a good Tory paper.


Lawrence E. Watson: I am not familiar with the politics of the papers involved, but I have another clipping here from the Kingston Whig-Standard and possibly some hon. members could identify its politics.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Senator Fraser's-Liberal.


Lawrence E. Watson: Dealing with the argument that a vote in the house would represent the true feelings of the majority of people, the Kingston Whig-Standard says:
It will do no such thing; what it probably will do is reflect the feelings (whether true or not) of members of parliament.
Nobody can tell me that all the people in my riding think the way I do, nor that all the people in the riding of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) think the same as he does.


Auguste Choquette: He is a Conservative; you know that.


Lawrence E. Watson: That is fine, I am glad to hear it.


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleion):: He has
seen the light.


Lawrence E. Watson: I could continue giving reasons why I feel we need a plebiscite, but I shall conclude by saying that on the day our gracious Queen left Canada I went up to the flag committee room and saw a flag hanging on the wall which was the choice of the 1946 flag committee-the red ensign with the coat of arms removed and a single maple leaf in the fly-and when I looked at that flag I thought it was a reasonable solution and one I could support. I would say it was a far more sensible flag and more reasonable solution than the one recommended by the present flag committee, and in saying that I am not saying anything against the flag committee members.
However, that flag was not accepted in 1946 and I feel that to settle this sorry mess into which the Prime Minister has got us he must agree to leave the question to a plebiscite so that the people of Canada may have a voice in the choice of what will be our national flag.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: I note, Mr. Speaker, that very frequently during this debate there comes nothing from the other side except senseless repetition of the word "question." Mr. Speaker, there is a question all right. The Canadian people are asking, wherever you go in English Canada: What kind of politics is the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) playing in his nefarious flag policy? I would remind hon. members who keep repeating the word "question" that that is what the question is. It is spreading across the nation and it is a question which will only be answered by the ballot box, whether the Prime Minister and his administration decide to give us a plebiscite or not.
I rise at this time to support the amendment so ably proposed by my hon. friend from Perth (Mr. Monteith) and seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp). The amendment before us has no doubt been placed on record, but perhaps I may be allowed to read it again. It is:
That the sixth report of the special committee be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to strike out paragraph 7 of the said report and substitute therefor the following;
"However, as the final vote of the committee did not reveal a sufficient degree of unanimity for the proposed design for a national flag for Canada, your committee therefore recommends that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to conduct a plebiscite to be held at the next general election in order that the Canadian people may be given their rightful opportunity to declare their choice concerning a national flag".
It concludes:
And that the committee for such purpose be revived.
This is a most reasonable request; it is a very democratic suggestion. It is a cogent amendment, one which is democratically sound, and it deserves the support of all members of this house. It asks that a plebiscite be held at the time of the next general election in order that the Canadian people may have an opportunity to express their views on a national flag.
This government, in the course of its present nefarious policy, has shown its usual characteristics of Liberal dictatorship and autocracy, making sure that the Canadian people are not given a voice in this matter. The reasons behind the government's refusal to accept the request made by the opposition regarding a plebiscite are deeper than they might appear; they are deeply hidden within the ramifications and machinations of the party opposite, both here on parliament hill and across the

country. The policy followed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in catering to one racial and geographical section of this country as against all the rest of Canada combined strangles and stultifies the voices which have been raised in support of our worthy emblems. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that I have used the plural and said "worthy emblems". I have done so because there are others which are as worthy to be our national emblems as many which have been mentioned. But they have been utterly ignored. The worthiest of these is, I submit, the Canadian red ensign.
In calling attention to the need for a plebiscite I would certainly join with all other hon. members in commending the committee of 15 which worked so hard and so long in the performance of its duties. The members of that committee worked diligently, I will admit, but I cannot congratulate them on their decision. If I may use a colloquial phrase, the dice were all loaded against there ever being a chance that the Canadian red ensign would become the flag of the committee's choice. The dice were loaded by the Prime Minister against there ever being a chance that the union jack or the fleur-de-lis would be present on any flag presented to us by the committee. After considering the design which the committee finally chose I can only say it underlines the need for a plebiscite so that the wise counsel of the Canadian people can guide us, by a majority vote, in the selection of a flag.
It has been said that after the first long, unproductive debate on the flag, anything we might say now would be repetitive. I am reminded of the story of a coloured minister of the gospel in the south who was asked by an admirer of his preaching how he managed to convey his thoughts to his parishioners on the plantation. He replied: "I tells them about their sins of omission and commission and I tells them again, and then I tells them what I told them." That is just what the opposition in this house has the duty of doing today.
I want to point out that this flag is a bicoloured flag. On the Canadian civic scene today we hear a lot of hyphenated expressions preceded by the syllable "bi". Biculturalism and bilingualism are examples. In my opinion red and white do not form such a good combination, from the point of view of colour, as we had on the first flag which was presented to us. The trifoliate flag was at least a tricolour-red, white and blue. Down through the years this country has sung "Three Cheers
Canadian Flag
for the Red, White and Blue". That song cannot be sung with reference to the flag now offered us because it is only a red and white flag. I have heard the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) attempting to convince us in this house that Canada's colours are red and white. This is another question upon which the people should help make a decision. The hon. member tried to establish that these colours were law, that they were irrevocable.
I submit this is not so. I listened to the hon. member for Leeds in the last debate on this subject lauding what he tried to put forward as the sound qualities and impeccable heraldic principles underlying the flag which was first presented to us. I listened to him again on Monday, November 3, as he made his excuses for his new heraldic hallucination while he dropped the red, white and blue trifoliate flag into the political mire in favour of this bicoloured, red-ended table cloth. After all that has been said in favour of the flag put forward by the committee, the flag now espoused so readily by the hon. member for Leeds, I want to ask him one question in this regard: Would it suit the people of his constituency and of the city of Brockville? I submit it would not.
On August 17 last, speaking on this question, I stated that the Liberal party members were brainwashed and gagged when it came to forming and expressing their views on this flag question. I repeat it now. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I said the herd of trained seals on the government backbenches were living on an iceflow which was becoming uninhabitable and which was rapidly breaking up. The members of the other parties in this parliament as well as the Canadian people generally saw that prophecy come true the week before last in the terrible spectacle witnessed here when the sins of omission and commission on the part of this government were aired. That is all I am permitted to say at the present time in that regard, Mr. Speaker, but I trust that future inquiries and reports will bring out the truth there. I say to the Prime Minister, stop this strife and contention by giving the Canadian people their right to choose by referendum; that inherent right which they have always possessed. That right is built right into the Canadian red ensign in its Christian, democratic crosses and in the insignia contained in the Canadian shield on the flag. I say to the Prime Minister, just tell the people, "Yes, I think it is best that we vote on this. We do not need to go to the bother and expense of calling an election for that purpose, either; but at the next general

Canadian Flag
election, whenever it is required that it occur, we will attach this plebiscite to the ballot and we can settle this matter peaceably among ourselves". How all hon. members on both sides of this house wish that the Prime Minister would make an announcement along those lines; then he would be doing something for the unity of this country. But no, so far our pleas have been of no avail and, like the coloured minister, I have to tell the Prime Minister again and quote Cowper as I did before;
The age of virtuous politics is past, and we are deep in that of cold pretence. Those we thought were patriots are grown too shrewd to be sincere and we too wise to trust them.
What a situation this House of Commons has come to. What a situation the affairs of this country have come to. After the opposition motion to adjourn this flag debate the other evening, when the Liberal party voted to continue it, I was talking to a lady who had been in the members gallery that evening. She said, "Poor Canada. What a pity. What a sell-out to one province. What is the purpose of this question?" Then she said, "Are not our emblems, so useful and so well respected down through the centuries, of any use to us any more, that they do not let the people decide this?" She concluded by saying -and this could be ominous, but I sincerely hope it never will be-"You can begin to put the barbed wire up at any time; things will be worse before they are better".


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: She was in the Tory gallery, obviously.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I have a few quotations that I would like to place before the house, Mr. Speaker, with regard to my argument that the Canadian people should be given their rightful opportunity of declaring their choice of a national flag. I have here "The Canadian Military Journal" of Dominion day, 1963. This was quite a while ago and a great deal of time has been taken up since in this flag debate. With regard to the opportunity that should be afforded our people of racial origins to decide this question, "The Canadian Military Journal" says as follows:
French speaking Canadians should remember- back through Canada's history to Quebec in 1774. They would find that brave group of men, and women too, French and English speaking, all striving to set a foundation on which a future nation could be built.
The cornerstone had just been laid. It was the Quebec Act which they, especially the English governor, Sir Guy Carleton, had striven to have worded in such a way as to assure that they and their children, and those to follow them,

would live in perfect harmony-a country with two languages and the four freedoms, as we know them today, but with one spirit and purpose-to live and work together.
That is what we have to do in this country, if it is to survive. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it will survive if democratic principles are followed and dictatorship and autocracy are discarded here in this chamber. I will continue to read from "The Canadian Military Journal" of Dominion day, 1963. That was a very flitting day for these things to be said, was it not, Mr. Speaker:
They should also remember that the national defence of Canada was supplied with material and paid for by England right up to the first world war-yes, and 100 years earlier in the war of 1812-14 when English and French speaking Canadians fought and died side by side, as brothers, to keep this Canada of ours. French speaking students, and those who lead them, should reflect on that before they talk separatism. Let's talk unity-sincerely and constructively-not like politicians who change their tunes to suit each audience, then forget it.
I think that is a very fitting and timely quotation. "However as the final vote of the committee did not reveal a sufficient degree of unanimity"-I am quoting the words of the amendment-"for the proposed design for a national flag for Canada", I would like to make reference to what I term, for my own purposes, exhibit No. 2, which is a letter from the Canadian Corps Association dated April 20, 1964, addressed to the Honourable Lester B. Pearson. I should like to correct that title; it should be "The Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson" -Prime Minister of Canada, Ottawa. The letter reads:
Honourable Sir:
The Canadian Corps Association, dominion command, continues to support firmly, the retention of the Canadian red ensign as Canada's national flag.
It should not be the decision of one person, nor of any political party, to eliminate the Canadian red ensign as Canada's flag, which it has been for almost 100 years.
The government's course of action in this matter should only be determined by a plebiscite.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I hear mut-terings of "Order". I contend that this exhibit is in order because it brings to the forefront the need for democratic principles to prevail in the form of a plebiscite, and that is what the amendment is talking about. This letter continues:
Petitions to the Secretary of State prove now that the Canadian red ensign is the majority choice of Canadians. Has the government no confidence in the citizens of Canada?

It is well that all hon. members should ask themselves that question, because it is a cogent question today:
Let them decide this question at the polls.
I heartily agree with that sentiment and I am not afraid of it in so far as it is an obligation upon me personally:
Our veterans organization strongly urge that the question to the qualified voters of Canada should read: Do you favour the retention of the Canadian red ensign as Canada's national flag? The yes or no answers should then determine the final design concerning Canada's national flag.
I have commended the committee and I wish to commend the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) and his colleagues who found there was no compromise in the minds of the great majority of the members of the committee. Nevertheless they went ahead and did their duty, even though they were outnumbered from the start, and purposely so as a result of the policies pursued by the government in connection with that loaded committee.
I have before me another timely quotation, even though it goes back to June 3, during the first phase of the debate. This is a quotation from one of my home town newspapers, the Napanee Beaver. In an editorial headed "Rally round the flag" the Beaver says:
It does seem a simple enough thing to define a flag, at least for dictionary makers. It is not so easy for prime ministers...
As his self-imposed deadline approaches Mr. Pearson may find that the flag-symbol of unity in most lands-will become a symbol of disunity in Canada.
How true is that prophecy today. I also received a communication from the Canadian Corps Association, as did all hon. members, dated November 27. They say in their letter:
The right hon. Prime Minister Pearson and some of his associates have during the past few days called for British fair play and Justice.
The Prime Minister has therefore substantiated the veterans of Canada's demand that our present government must not eliminate from Canada the flag of justice and freedom, the Canadian red ensign...
The Canadian Corps Association, dominion command, at this time reiterates that no change in Canada's present national flag should be made unless the government is so instructed by the citizens of Canada by means of a plebiscite vote held in conjunction with Canada's next general election.
Yours respectfully,
E. V. Heesaker.
How timely and directly relevant, Mr. Speaker, is that communication to this discussion. As the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Watson) pointed out, there are many
Canadian Flag
well founded articles available, and I have another here. This is an article by Mr. Bruce West in the Globe and Mail for December 4 concerning the flag issue. I hear someone laugh.


Auguste Choquette: I am not laughing at you. I am not even listening.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Hon. members opposite might well take into consideration the well chosen words of Mr. Bruce West.


Maurice John Moreau: They are already on the record.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: He says:
Let the people speak on this matter and settle it once and for all. Take the question out of politics and into the realm of the heart and soul of Canada, where it belongs. When the people of Canada themselves have spoken, I for one will be willing to abide by the decision.
And so I too will be willing to abide by the decision.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: When was Bruce West elected?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: He continues:
Make no mistake about it, there are extremely important principles involved in this question. It is not merely a matter of whose piece of bunting has the most eye-appeal. The flag question is symbolic of several more vastly important ones to this country. Among them is this one: Shall we, in common with the eagerly emerging nations, turn in some strange shame from our great heritage and past or shall we use them as a proud and solid foundation upon which to build our future?
Next I have a letter which I think all hon. members received. It is an open letter to the members of the House of Commons and the Senate from the Christian action movement, Manitoba branch. They say:
Dear Sir:
We are among those many Canadians who fear the implications of the removal of the union jack from our flag. The union jack signifies our continuing association with the commonwealth. Why are Mr. Pearson and his followers bent on removing it? Is it an initial step in severing this connection?
There, Mr. Speaker, is another point I should like hon. members on your right to cogitate. This letter continues:
We believe that if Canadians understood this to be the case they would be overwhelmingly opposed to the proposed change. Mr. Diefenbaker, who has often been unfairly called an obstructionist, is defending the right of our people to make a choice.
Hon. members will forgive me if I insert the word "very" before the word "right" in the last sentence there, to try to make it

Canadian Flag
more emphatic, although it is emphatic enough. The letter goes on:
Mr. Churchill has given an excellent account of the history behind our flag.
The red ensign probably commands a greater following than any other individual flag submitted to the committee. Though, unfortunately, the flag has been made a party issue, many rank and file Liberals prefer to retain the red ensign but out of party loyalty may avoid overt opposition. The flag should not be a party issue, or the subject of a personal battle.
He is not referring to the ensign, but to the flag, whatever it may be, which is finally adopted by this country. The letter then continues:
The first and second points in our statement of policy are:
1.	Allegiance to the crown and the preservation of Canada as a constitutional monarchy;
2.	The preservation of national sovereignty and the strengthening of the British commonwealth.
We hereby petition you to take a stand in parliament in favour of retaining the red ensign as our flag. We believe this would help restore Canadian unity. The best step, however, would be to drop the issue; or to let the people decide in a plebiscite in the next election.
We believe that such a course would assist in restoring Canadian unity, and I am sure the majority of hon. members in this house also hold that belief.
I have in my hand a communication from the loyal Orange alliance board dated November 30, 1964, which expresses favour for the retention of the red ensign. In part this communication reads as follows:
We present for your comfort and consideration the following observations, which appear to us to be right and proper; There has been much said on the flag issue and, we have reason to believe, a lot has been left unsaid. Even that which has been said has not been given due and proper examination.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, the action or the lack thereof on the part of hon. members to the right of Mr. Speaker gives a good example of their failure to give this question due and proper examination.
The communication then continues:
A profound thought is expressed in the book of Proverbs, chapter 18, verse 13, reading:
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it,-it is a folly and a shame unto him".
This communication concludes by stating:
We do sincerely hope and pray that the eyes and ears of all members of the House of Commons may be opened so that God's truth may be made known to them and that they may fervently serve us in peace and righteousness.
The division of the house this afternoon an hour or so ago consequent upon the motion of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) was timely and indicative of the situation as it
[Mr. Alkenbrack.l
now exists here today, and makes the position of the government regarding the flag an untenable one. We have indicated in truth and by our vote that we now have a flag which hon. members have indicated they respect, and that indeed nothing further need be said in this regard. In other words, we do not need further debate on this question. However, the government and its supporters, with the exception of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), have by their votes indicated that they are of the opinion this debate should be continued. They have indicated their agreement that more should be said regarding the flag.
Again I point out that the government benches are silent, just as they were silent during earlier stages of this debate. Conspicuous by this silence are most of the Liberal members from Ontario who have not only been brainwashed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and Rene Levesque, but gagged by the ponderous and divisive machine that the Liberal party has created, which would destroy and take away from English Canada those emblems which have been ours for more than 160 years in this country.
I use that number of years because it was in 1785 that the United Empire Loyalists landed at Adolphustown in the united counties of Lennox and Addington, where I live. That has always been a time measurement factor in that area. Many memorials are in the memorial cemetery there dating back to 1785. This record pertains not only to Adolphustown, but to many areas across the country from Halifax and Saint John, to the St. Lawrence river and along the great lakes, where British institutions and democratic principles first took a foothold, were bom and propagated in this country.
I have attempted to put forward these points in favour of the amendment, and in closing I should like to say that I support the amendment and favour a plebiscite because I feel Canadian people should be given the democratic right to make this momentous choice. Once that right has been given to them we can then return to our consideration of more productive business for the betterment of Canada.


Mr. Albert Horner (The Baillefords):: May
I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate and I make no apologies for doing so. A matter that affects every Canadian now and for generations, the making of a change in the flag design, is of the utmost importance. The government has made such a mess of handling this issue that the only way out is to allow the Canadian people to decide at the next election by means of a plebiscite. Why are members opposite so opposed to a plebiscite if they are so sure the maple leaf design will win? The trouble is, Mr. Speaker, they are not sure at all.
Since we have returned to the flag debate my mail has been increasing and all the letters I have received endorse the stand we are taking on having the matter decided by a plebiscite. The polls that have been conducted in the cities indicate that a majority of the people approached were in favour of a plebiscite. If polls were conducted in the rural areas, they would show a large percentage of the people were in favour of a plebiscite. I received one letter from a man- a very honest man-who stated that even though he had not voted for me at the election he was 100 per cent in favour of having the matter decided by a plebiscite. He was solidly behind the stand of this party for having the question of a flag decided in that way.
The question of the flag is one of vital importance, Mr. Speaker, and its importance is based on two main points. First, it is one of the most emotionally charged issues with which the House of Commons has been asked to deal. If it is not properly handled it could seriously jeopardize the dreams of the fathers of confederation. The matter of choosing a flag is not ordinary legislation. The House of Commons is called upon every year to debate the speech from the throne, supply, the budget and so on. Laws are made and modified every day in this house. However, it is only once in a hundred years or so that parliament is called upon to approve a flag which would then be flown for generations to come. A flag is not something we can change in a day because the majority of the members of the House of Commons so desire. Let us remember that once we have a flag it will always be there. It will be there throughout our lives.
There are Canadians in Canada who say that the very nature of the flag issue imposes upon us the task of solving the problem with-
Canadian Flag
out endangering the unity of Canada in any way. We hear many members opposite say, "Let us vote". I challenge them to let us have a plebiscite. The trouble is that there is a tendency among some Liberals and some newspapermen to dispose of the flag issue by ignoring certain fundamental facts, and thereby deliberately misleading the people of Canada. The first, and most important-


Auguste Choquette: Who wrote that speech?


An hon. Member:: Let us hear from you.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let us hear you make a speech; you have not got the fortitude.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member is reading his whole speech, which is absolutely out of order. We are thoroughly fed up with things in this house and with members who read speeches written by somebody else.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the hon. member has no right to suggest that an hon. member's speech has been written by another.


Eric Alfred Winkler: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) always interferes in this particular manner, but never wishes to express his own views. We wish that if he had the intestinal fortitude, he would get up and express his views on this subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce is out of order to the same extent and in the same way as the hon. member for Lotbiniere was.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The hon. member says that I do not want to get up in order to express my opinion. This is not so, since my views are clear and definite. I am against the plebiscite and against a member reading a speech in the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; may I suggest to hon. members that we return to the subject matter of the discussion and allow the hon. member for The Battlefords to continue his remarks?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Canadian Flag


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We know it is contrary to the rules for members of this house to read their speeches. Since it is obvious the hon. member for The Battlefords is reading his speech we should give our permission, take it as read and have it recorded in Hansard. Then we could get on with the business of the house.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most shameful allegations that has ever been made in this House of Commons. The hon. member has indicated that the member for The Battlefords-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; the hon. member has suggested, as has been done on many occasions before, that the hon. member is possibly reading his speech and it should therefore be tabled. I think the remark should be taken in the spirit in which it appeared to be made. I urge hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and co-operate also with the hon. member for The Battlefords by giving him a chance to make his speech. The Chair recognizes, and all hon. members know, that hon. members are not to read speeches, although some members take the liberty of referring to extensive and copious notes. Perhaps this is what the hon. member is doing now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Ralph Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; for a few minutes I will stick fairly closely to my notes, and then I am going to put them down. Perhaps hon. members opposite will wish I was still reading.


Auguste Choquette: Who wrote that speech?


Albert Ralph Horner: I have noticed the absence of Mr. Kent from the house, and perhaps that explains why we have not heard any speeches from hon. members opposite. They have no ghost writer. I wrote this speech myself, if that information is of any help to the hon. member who sits there in his seat and chortles at me. The first and most important fact that many people have ignored since the flag debate began is that the Liberal party stands for two flags whereas the Conservative party stands for one flag. [Translation]


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order and I will stand my ground to the end, because it is obvious that we are now victims of a filibuster that downgrades parliament. The hon. member is reading every

word of his speech and he does not have the right to do that, because it is against the rules of the house. Therefore, I would ask you to watch him closely and you will notice that he is unable to take his eyes off his text a single second. Since he refuses to comply with the rules, I would ask you to order him to resume his seat.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If I might speak to that point, I think the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) should read the Prime Minister's code of ethics and maybe he would be a little more gentle in his approach to this matter.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, about the point of order raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler). I would like to know who are those gentlemen in the house; are they those who force this degrading filibuster on us or those who wish to encourage progress?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The point raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere is to some extent well taken. There are any number of citations to indicate that it is contrary to the rules to read speeches, but on the other hand a certain degree of leniency has been allowed in the course of this debate and I would suggest that that same leniency and generosity be extended to the hon. member for The Battlefords. At the same time I would ask him to try and make the Chair's task a little easier by not following his notes too closely.


Albert Ralph Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to make your task difficult. At the same time I want to let it be known to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) that in spite of all his interruptions I will continue to speak. The Liberal party advocates that those who want to show their respect to the commonwealth can fly the union jack-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I ask the
co-operation of hon. members who seem to be exchanging remarks that are a little strong, across the aisle. I ask the co-operation of all concerned in order to allow the hon. member to continue his speech.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I would ask you, sir, to ask the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) to contain himself.


George James McIlraith: And the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for The Battlefords.


Albert Ralph Horner: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party is in favour of two flags and are against those who want to keep something of their past and who want to fly the union jack. The Liberal party wants to break away from the past-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The Chair has to voice an objection in connection with the hon. member's speech, not because he is referring to notes but because he is straying some distance away from the subject which we should be discussing, namely the amendment. I would ask him to restrict his remarks to the particular point mentioned in it, the plebiscite.


Albert Ralph Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am leading up to it but I hope I do not have to mention plebiscite in every sentence or every other sentence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, but it should be mentioned once.


Albert Ralph Horner: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I have not been speaking for many minutes and I think I have mentioned it three times already. The word "distinctive" in the Liberal dictionary sometimes means camouflage of our history, our traditions and the flag which has been honoured by our forefathers who founded this nation. National unity in Canada cannot be achieved by diplomatic methods in which Mr. Pearson is the accomplished professional.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member must know he cannot refer to another hon. member by his name, particularly in the case of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition who should be alluded to by their titles or official positions in the house.


Mr. Chretien:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you suggest to the hon. member to take oft his glasses for a minute so that we may know to what extent he is reading his speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) on a point of order.
Canadian Flag


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Horner) would supply Your Honour with a copy of his notes so that you might be able to determine in advance whether any of his speech is in order or not.


Albert Ralph Horner: Mr. Speaker, I think the government of today is acting in exactly the same manner as an ostrich which puts its head in the sand; what it cannot see it simply ignores. We in this party are opposed to two flags. We believe there is one Canada, one nation, and that there should be only one flag. Some of the Liberal members opposite are very pleased with the idea that a few Conservative members did not go along with our party, but soon they will find out how their colleagues will vote on the second resolution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Even if the Chair wants to be indulgent and co-operative with the hon. member I do not think he can be allowed to discuss the second resolution at this stage of the proceedings.


Albert Ralph Horner: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) who conducted a poll to see what his constituents thought about a plebiscite. I think it probably explains the feelings of the people in Quebec far better than do the hon. members opposite who represent people in Quebec. That poll showed that of the letters he received in answer to it some 216 favoured the plebiscite and 155 were against it. I wish hon. members opposite would get up and tell us why they think there should not be a plebiscite.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I object to the interruptions which are coming from the other side of the house. That man over there does not know how much he has to know in order to know how little he knows.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Albert Ralph Horner: I could not agree more with the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff) in his comments last night. He is one of the senior members of the house. He told us he has been here for 25 years and this was the worst parliament he had ever seen. I am sure there are many people in the house and throughout the country who agree with him.
When I was home a couple of weeks ago I had a talk with some of the people back

Canadian Flag
there. I talked with one man in particular, an average, good, solid Canadian citizen who asked me, "Have you fellows nothing better to discuss than the flag?" I told him we had, but that it was the government which introduced legislation which we have to pass or oppose. He said, "Well, in that case you fellows are doing the right thing. I think the Prime Minister is a fairly clever man but I think he should know we would like to have a say on what flag we want." I went to a polling and I overheard a man saying to the returning officer: If they would just let us do this on the flag question we could settle it in a day. The deputy returning officer agreed with him, and I could not agree with him more.
I know that members opposite are annoyed because this debate is continuing. That is because it has aroused the people of this country. I should like to hear members opposite speak up. I should like to hear what the hon. members for the city of Halifax have to say about this. I should like to hear from the members who represent Newfoundland. I should like to hear from some of the members from Ontario, from those who represent Toronto ridings in this house. I should like to hear the views of the members who come from British Columbia, especially the opinions of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos). There is only one member on that side who has had the courage of his convictions, the courage to stand up and say what he thinks.


An hon. Member:: What about Kootenay East?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh yes, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). He feels very badly because he had aspirations to become minister of labour. But since that failed he has taken to reading Beau-chesne.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows the question before the house and he should relate his remarks to it.


Albert Ralph Horner: That is right, Mr. Speaker, but hon. members opposite are leading me away from it.
About ten days ago the Prime Minister was speaking to a federal convention in Saskatchewan and he told this convention we were going to have a flag. But I do not think he placed a time limit on it this time, October or Christmas. He said the government had prepared legislation dealing with agriculture.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Where is it?


Albert Ralph Horner: He made it known that we in the opposition were the ones who were obstructing this program. But we are interested in seeing this legislation, particularly if it affects eastern agriculture. If members opposite will agree to drop this subject and let us get on with these other important matters no one would be better pleased than ourselves. I know a flag is a symbol, but you cannot eat it and you cannot educate a family on it.
We are being very reasonable in asking for a plebiscite. We heard about a free vote in this house. What a joke. First, the Prime Minister said: We will have a free vote. But I suppose that after hearing the opinions of their supporters they found that the flag proposal was not likely to carry. So they said: You can still have a free vote, but if the government loses there will be an election. With an election gun at their heads, some of the members had to swallow themselves-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member restrict his remarks to the subject under discussion?


Albert Ralph Horner: I am doing my best and I think I will get there but I believe hon. members opposite must be answered.
Other members, I know, have been reading articles in the course of their speeches. Here is one from the Sudbury Daily Star. It concerns a plebiscite and it states this under the heading "Fear Plebiscite on Flag?":
There is a growing suspicion in the minds of Canadians that Prime Minister Pearson and his government supporters are now afraid to submit the "flag issue" to the people as a plebiscite-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. Although he is correct in saying that a number of articles and editorials have been read into the record there is a distinction which has to be made somewhere, and I can assure him it is not easy to make that distinction. But the rules clearly prevent the reading of articles or editorials which comment on a debate which is actually going on in the house or which reflects on such a debate. The editorial which the hon. member has begun to read is, surely, in this category because the very first sentence clearly reflects on this particular debate. I think the hon. member would be out of order in reading it.


Albert Ralph Horner: This editorial was printed before the present debate started.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid the learned author Beauchesne in his fourth edition does not make that distinction.


David Vaughan Pugh: Before you give a final ruling on that point, may I point out that there has been editorial comment here and there throughout Canada on this subject, and many speakers have read editorial comment into the record. I think the important thing to decide is not whether or not this article can be read into the record at the present time or whether it refers to the necessity for a plebiscite. Obviously the first words in this editorial do refer to a plebiscite, and with respect I feel Your Honour should take this article somewhat out of context and say that it is germane at the present time. In other words, if I may put it in another way, if the hon. member wishes to stand on his two feet and say, not for his own constituency but for other constituencies-if he referred to Sudbury-that as a result of reading an editorial he is led to believe that the people in that constituency do desire a plebiscite, he can do so. If Your Honour rules he cannot read the actual editorial, surely he may paraphrase the editorial and put its views before the house.


Mr. McIntosh:: Further to the point of order, I would suggest that the word "plebiscite" coming in is incidental. Surely from time to time, ever since the question came up in this house, there has been talk about a plebiscite and it should not be out of order simply because the editorial has the word "plebiscite" in it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member knows that the Chair is concerned with the rights of all hon. members and that in reaching decisions reference has to be made to the authorities, and some guidance obtained from them. If the hon. member would read May, Bourinot or Beauchesne he would know that this question has been dealt with on many occasions. Beauchesne, in citation 157, says it is out of order to read in a debate any extract which reflects on any proceedings before the house. In other words, if an editorial is directed at the very subject matter of a debate in the house, expressing an opinion, perhaps, for or against the way in which a debate is being carried on, it is the suggestion of the authors that this cannot be read because a debate should be the expression of hon. members' own views. I suggest the hon. member should bear this in mind.
I certainly would have no objection if he were to paraphrase the views of other people
20220-692J
Canadian Flag
and make their views his own. But the rule is there, and it has to be respected.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Could he not agree with this editorial and then go ahead and read it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That would be
against the rules.


Albert Ralph Horner: In short, then, the government fears a plebiscite because when polls were taken in some of the larger cities it was found that the people wanted a plebiscite. They also found that in nine out of the ten provinces of Canada the large majority favoured the red ensign. The only province where the people favoured this other flag with the dead maple leaf on it was Quebec, and even there people were not 100 per cent in favour of it. I cannot understand why this matter has to take up so much of the time of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Albert Ralph Horner: It was not
even mentioned in the speech from the throne. It was not mentioned in the election campaign in the province of Quebec. Probably the Liberal party was running four different campaigns-one in Quebec, one in the mar-itimes, one in British Columbia-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: These remarks are not germane to the subject matter of the debate. Perhaps the hon. member will confine his remarks to the motion which was moved earlier.


Edward Nasserden: With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, I believe they are germane. This is one of the reasons for advocating a plebiscite. It is because of the duplicity of the party opposite in the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member for Rosthern would allow the hon. member for The Battlefords to make that argument.


Albert Ralph Horner: Mr. Speaker, I implore the Prime Minister of this country to use his good judgment in this connection and let this question be decided by a plebiscite. I ask him to let the people of this country decide. I for one will accept the flag for which the majority of the people of this country vote. I do not like to say too much against the proposed flag design because it might possibly be our flag some day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Canadian Flag


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Hon. members opposite applaud; but they are still afraid of the plebiscite. They have tried to ram this thing through parliament, with the worst possible diplomatic sense. I am surprised at our Prime Minister and hope he will retreat in this connection before it is too late.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bow River.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Fisher:: Glad to see you back.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the spirit that is supposed to govern us at this time of the year governs the debate tonight. I noticed that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) welcomed me back. I was in that part of the country-may I say this in an introductory way-where there does not seem to be very much support for the New Democratic party. I think they had 3 per cent of the vote in my riding, and I do not believe it is going to increase next time. But I did not intend to get rude or personal. I had hoped that the spirit of the debate would be like the spirit of Christmas; and when I speak of spirit I do not refer to that which perhaps some people indulged in during the supper hour. I have not yet spoken one word in this debate on the flag.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody says "Oh", but the record will bear me out. I would like to say, let us make certain that we know the issue that is before the house right now. The question before the house is a motion to adopt the committee report and an amendment thereto as to whether we should have a plebiscite. You may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that the remarks I have scribbled out on paper will be directed to that issue.
I might say that one reason I have not previously made a speech on the flag-and I trust I will receive the attention of the house-is because I am one of those-and perhaps I need some sympathy in this regard from some of my friends from French Quebec; I do not know-who has been steeped in British tradition. My family came to Alberta four generations ago and I was steeped in British tradition. When one is dealing with any kind of tradition, be it French tradition, British tradition, Ukrainian tradition or German tradition, he sometimes tends to speak with a certain degree of prejudice. It is for

that reason that up to now I have refrained from making any remarks in this debate.
My first question is this. Why, as a member of the Conservative party, would I not vote tonight for the adoption of the report? I have given this matter serious thought, the people of my constituency of Bow River have given it serious thought and the people of western Canada have given it some serious thought. The reason I cannot, in all fairness with my conscience, vote for the adoption of the report tonight is the fact, and I say this with all seriousness, that if we are changing the flag we now have, surely the people of this country-and I am going to have something to say about that in a few moments-should be able to make known their views in this regard. We know what the Telepolls and the Gallup polls have said; we know that some 50 per cent of the people of this country would like to have a plebiscite. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I felt it my duty to speak tonight on a matter I have refrained from speaking on previously.
I would remind the house that we have now been sitting for 206 days. I would also remind the house that the debate on the flag last summer lasted only 20 days. There may be a place-and I am one of those who believe this-for a filibuster; but I do not believe that on such an emotional and important question as the flag itself and its symbols, which stand for liberty and freedom as we know it, or our traditions, 20 days of debate and the few days we have taken on this occasion is a real filibuster, when we have sat in parliament for 206 days. A message has been got across to the people of this country, as I found out when I was absent from the house. The hon. member for Port Arthur brought this to my attention. During the time I was absent from the house for a week I made four or five speeches in the province of Alberta and one in another province. We have been told that the people of this country believe this parliament has become a decadent institution because all we have discussed during the 206 days has been the matter of a flag. I felt, after listening to the message of the people, that it is time somebody set the thing in its proper perspective and pointed out that there has been no filibuster on the flag.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They laugh, Mr. Speaker. One tenth of the time has been spent on this question. Can we call that a filibuster? I say, and I am not ashamed to say it, that there are great issues in this country and when

they arise there is a place for a filibuster. I am not saying this is not the place.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I believe this is relevant, Mr. Speaker, because we have been charged with filibustering. Let us look for just a few moments at some of the things that have happened in the past. I draw this analogy. I recall that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill)-who is not in his place tonight; and I make nothing of that-said on one occasion in the debate on the question of class or kind that if he had to speak for 50 days, that legislation would never pass, and he was prepared to do it.
There are instances where a filibuster is probably necessary. We have heard the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), who tonight is absent and is generally leaning up against the wall making noises, talking about a filibuster and parliament. This makes me sick, because the house will recall that when his party split up like chickens that had left the sitting hen, and spread all over the place, he said they would filibuster parliament for 100 days until they were recognized as a party. These are the people who have been throwing the spearheads and the charges during the last few weeks. I do not know what I will be called after this speech, but I have been called a hawk, a spearhead and even a piledriver; and Mr. "Leakman" -no, I mean the member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) tonight in the Telegram accused me of being a Chinook wind.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has no right to refer to this as a leak, because he knows perfectly well that he was struck by the full force of the hose.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All I have to say to the hon. member is, what a hose. Coming back to the subject of a plebiscite, I would vote for the adoption of the report now, and so would many other western Canadians, if we were sure this was not a foot in the door for other things. I believe this is relevant, Mr. Speaker. We would vote for it if we were sure in western Canada that we were not going to destroy, first of all a strong central government in Canada, that we were not going to destroy next the Governor General, that we were not going to destroy next the crown and many of the other institutions and traditions for which we stand. I say this is relevant because the people of
Canadian Flag
Canada want a plebiscite. I say that the government of this country have no mandate to implement a flag which the Canadian people do not want. That is why the Conservative party, a national party which has governed Canada equally in time with the Liberal party, demand tonight on the floor of this house a plebiscite. The Conservative party were backed by 59 per cent of the people and they are asking for a plebiscite. Since when are 59 per cent of the people to be ignored?


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is 64 per cent.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Some hon. member says it is 64 per cent. Since when are they to be ignored? So in other words, not only have we a minority government, but a government which is in a minority on this issue as well.
Let me ask this question. I hear some of my hon. friends starting to holler across the way. They swell out their chests like farm roosters and say to themselves: Let the Liberals and Conservatives kill themselves off and everything will be great for us. We have been hearing that for 25 years, but those hon. members are still sitting in their small little groups making small little speeches.


Yvon Dupuis: Would the hon. member accept a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


Yvon Dupuis: How does the hon. member know that the government is in a minority unless he permits the house to take a vote?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen genius until tonight. I will answer that now. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), their leader, went across this country talking about a distinctive flag. Did he ever describe to the people of Ontario or to the people of the maritimes that a distinctive flag would require the removal of the union jack?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say that that is a minority view.


Yvon Dupuis: Do you want me to answer that question?


Harold Warren Danforth: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: Make your own speech.


Some hon. Members:: Question.

Canadian Flag


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) has the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear the Liberals yelling "Question", and so are those in the splinter parties, because we know they are working together at the present time; but as long as I have a voice in my body I will express the view of the people I represent. If hon. members opposite think that by asking simple, childish questions they are influencing anybody in the press tonight, they are not. As far as I am concerned they can get up and make their own speeches. I know that some of them are frightened to talk about a plebiscite. I know that the members from Ontario and the maritimes are more frightened of this issue than any which have faced this country for a long time. But it will never be said of this side of the house that the Conservatives do not fight. I am ready to fight as far as this issue is concerned, and I will not be silenced.
My hon. friend asked me a question and I shall ask him a question and answer it in my own way.


Yvon Dupuis: I can answer it too.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You can make your own speech later and I shall be most interested to hear it. My question is this: Will the vote of parliament speak for the people? My answer is simple. I say tonight that if I sat down and no other member spoke on this issue, whatever the result in this parliament the people of Canada have not spoken. Because of the discipline in their party and the discipline of their whip to get them to vote in a certain way, hon. members opposite are voting against their own constituents in order to keep the Liberal party together.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should address the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, because I turn away for a moment to speak to my hon. friends does not mean I have forgotten that you are there, believe me. Let me ask this question again: Will the vote of parliament speak for the people? I say no. There are many Canadians today who want to retain the red ensign.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On different occasions I have watched the Red Skelton show. Tonight I am seeing the best performance he has ever done.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me say this. I would rather have the dignity of Red Skelton than the hoodlumism of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). I have watched him in his seat in this House of Commons and I say he does not do his constituents justice. He is neither dignified nor judicious in his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) raised a question of privilege which was obviously unacceptable to the Chair. I suggest to the hon. member that he should not retaliate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that one should probably turn the other cheek but when an hon. member in the house will not stand to sing "God Save the Queen" I say he is not judicious and that he is not dignified.


Eric Alfred Winkler: He is not a Canadian.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I feel I am justified in rising on a question of privilege.
I was just joking earlier and making fun of the hon. member who was ridiculous. Everybody thought he was ridiculous and was laughing at him.
Now, he has just made a rather unpleasant and spiteful remark. He said that I did not have the courage to rise when the "God Save the Queen" was sung. I think he is referring to the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde) who remained seated when the "God Save the Queen" was sung.
Mr. Speaker, when any national anthem is sung, one must be courteous enough to rise. This is what I would have done had I been here on that occasion, even though I hope "O Canada" will officially become our national anthem.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde) kindly resume his seat. The hon. member has raised another question of privilege which is perhaps a little more justifiable than his first one. Although I do not think there is a real question of privilege involved perhaps the hon. member was justified to make the correction he did to the assertion made by the hon. member for Bow River. But it seems to me that we are not

going in the right direction when we allow these questions of privilege and points of order to interrupt the hon. member who now has the floor; and I would ask the hon. member for Bow River to limit his remarks to the matter which is specifically before us at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Now that the hon. member has had a chance to satisfy his conscience perhaps we can remain at ten o'clock and hear him sing "God Save the Queen" in this house to justify himself.
Now I ask the question: Where did the Prime Minister at any time during the last election define what he meant by distinctive?


Yvon Dupuis: Do you want an answer?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You listen and you will get one. I ask this question in all seriousness. It is very easy to use the word distinctive. If you use the expression "a distinctive Canadian flag" in Alberta it means one thing. But if you use the word distinctive in the province of Quebec it may mean another thing. Both places have a right to draw their inference in that regard. But when one is electioneering and says: "I promise to bring in a distinctive flag", then I think he owes the public a duty; and particularly when one is leader of a party he must assume responsibility and spell out what is meant by distinctive.
Therein lies the whole problem, Mr. Speaker. If this meaning had been spelled out, perhaps tonight members like me would not be so serious in asking for a plebiscite on this matter. We believe we should have a plebiscite on the matter because this meaning has not been spelled out. I am quite confident that the people in Toronto believed that when the Prime Minister referred to a distinctive flag he meant something of meaning to Canadians, that the symbol to be used was perhaps the fleur-de-lis or the union jack, but certainly something held dear to the hearts of Canadians and has stood for freedom and liberty, as well as Canadian traditions, as we know them. As long as we allow someone to suggest that that which is believed in by one province is the same thing believed in by every other province, we are failing and misleading the public. In this regard the government has no mandate whatsoever.
Other great leaders, most of them Liberals, have spelled out quite adequately what they meant. Right Hon. Mackenzie King, and
Canadian Flag
Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, both Liberal prime ministers, never envisaged a flag for Canada without also envisaging the inclusion of symbols which led one to believe that we are part of French and British background. Further than that, the majority of Canadians have in their hearts a feeling of brotherhood and friendship for every race. On other occasions in this house I have said that many Canadians originated in Europe and other countries of the world, but came to Canada leaving their prejudices and hatreds in the countries they left. Whether they were Germans who hated the French, French who hated the British, or vice-versa, they came to Canada as a new land and were able to be friends over the back fence with their neighbours, regardless of their ethnic origin.
Many communities in western Canada are made up of Canadians of ethnic origins other than British and French, yet they have the right to speak in reference to the flag of Canada, just as do the French and the English Canadians. I have never been more serious in my life than I am now in suggesting that all Canadians at this time have a right to a voice through a plebiscite. At the risk of repeating something which has been said often during the last several days, I do not believe the government has a mandate in this regard, and should not force a flag, chosen by some means other than by the majority voice of Canadians, down the throats of Canadian citizens.
If the majority of Canadian people through a plebiscite choose the flag which was approved by the flag committee, I shall stand with as much dignity as any other Canadian when that flag is unfurled as the Canadian flag, as I would when any other flag was unfurled, including that flag which has been ours since confederation. However, because of the multiplicity of the effort now being made in respect of a distinctive Canadian flag, members of parliament do not have a mandate to vote here as they might feel they should, or vote because of political expediency, but must speak on behalf of the people they represent.
In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I feel sympathetic toward the people of French Canadian origin, and I must say they appear to have unanimity in what they do. However, I should like to ask them in all sincerity to remember that we can only build a united country by co-operation and unanimity. We can never thrust down each other's throat those things which are unacceptable. We

Canadian Flag
must exercise tolerance and co-operation toward each other in our differences ot opinion in order to unite this country and build a great nation, and we must perform those exercises of co-operation and tolerance in the selection of a flag of which we can all be proud.
Some hon. members will no doubt suggest that already a committee has studied this question and come to decision. That is not quite a completely true statement. I have before me three different flag designs. While I realize I am not permitted by the rules to display these designs in the house, I should like at this time to describe them. One design has a maple leaf with a red band on one side to the left with a union jack, and a red band to the right with a fleur-de-lis. I understand that design was turned down by the committee.
We have another design which embodies three maple leaves with a blue band to the left and right. When the committee voted on this design they decided, rather than turn it down, to retain it until they had made a choice between that design and the design embodying one maple leaf with a red band on the left and on the right. Finally the committee had to make a choice, and this choice was forced by a squeeze play. I do not intend to suggest any motives behind this situation but I do believe that the people in this country question seriously the motives behind this forced choice. In any event, the committee report refers to a design with one maple leaf with a red band to its left and right, as the committee's choice for a distinctive Canadian national flag. That is a false, wrong and completely incorrect statement of what occurred. The committee stated that it preferred that flag to the Pearson pennant which embodied the three maple leaves and the two blue band design. The committee did nothing more than choose the design now before us in favour of the Pearson suggestion.
The people are confused as to what decision the committee made and, if they are confused in that regard, surely they are confused as to any design selected by this parliament. Therefore, they are entitled to express their opinions through a plebiscite. One might ask what problem the committee did solve, and whether it was unanimous in its solution. Had the committee decided that the flag now before this house was the flag for Canada, over all designs submitted to it, that would be a different proposition and we would be out of order now in continuing this debate. That, however, is not the situation.

Let us be frank in our assessment of the decision made by the flag committee. When we were in government there were more Conservative members on committees than Liberal members, C.C.F. members, New Democratic members or Social Credit members. Of course, it is only in the last few years that there have been Social Credit members in this house at all, but that is neither here nor there. Committees are set up with the majority of members being members of the government party. That same situation prevailed in respect of this flag committee set up by this Liberal government. That committee decide by a majority vote exactly what the government intended. They really did not solve the problem with which they were faced.
I realize that some hon. members will say that we on this side asked that a committee be set up, but in answer to that suggestion I say that as long as a committee works in the way that committee did, while it performs a function, it is not performing the kind of function that was expected or asked for. The function we expected that committee to perform is not reflected in its report, which in effect states that the committee rubber-stamped a certain flag design. I am certain that no flag design was even considered until it had been approved, and I suggest that is the fact.
Most Canadians are thinking today of what Liberal spokesmen have said in the past in relation to their right to express an opinion in regard to something of this importance. In this regard I should like to quote-not from an editorial-what Jack Doupe said about this subject. What he has to say is an historical fact and I am sure it will not be disputed by any member. Mr. Doupe said:
More typically Canadian, and more effective, than these private bills is the sort of event-of which there must have been countless others- that J. W. Piekersgill reports from the 1943 Quebec wartime conference in his account of the Mackenzie King papers:
"Later that same afternoon, while walking in the Citadel grounds with one of his secretaries, Mackenzie King (Piekersgill quotes) 'saw the Canadian flag and the union jack flying side by side in the grounds.' "
This is what happened, and this is the opinion expressed apparently by the Minister of Transport, Mr. Piekersgill, who said he had arranged this the day before. He is supposed to have said:
"I had been put out when I saw the union jack and Canadian flags flying one beneath the other- the Canadian flag beneath the union jack, the day that Churchill arrived." He had subsequently



8. 19G4

[Stage Direction]
spoken to Churchill about flying the three flags side by side and had then given directions that this should be done. "I can now say," he wrote, "that this was done with agreement between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of Canada." He added that both of them agreed that "the Canadian flag should come in the centre".
On that occasion he approved the flag which was approved by order in council. I say that Canadians are entitled to express their viewpoint. When the leader of the Liberals went out electioneering in Ontario he described a distinctive flag, and he described the kind of flag that would contain some of the elements of the Canadian ensign, particularly the union jack. I am sure that to be fair with the French Canadians, and I want to be fair, when he spoke about a distinctive flag in Quebec he left the impression that the union jack would be off that flag. I say that is the kind of impression, that is the kind of attitude which disunites this country and does not unify us.
I suppose we always quote from those people in other parties whom we respect. What about Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, what did he say? This is what he said when dealing with this subject. He had great influence in Canada and I am sure no one would deny that fact in this house, particularly those who come from Quebec. He was steeped in French culture, understood their problems and understood the province and its relation to the rest of the country. I do not know of any leader in my time who had more respect from the country. This is what he said and these words are as true tonight as they were then when he uttered them.
We hear the uproar when one of us raises his voice with regard to our flag. There is no unity in this parliament on this subject. There is a sham unity in the Liberal party. I say this, if you fellows would get up and speak your mind, you might possibly say something about what goes on in your caucus. This is what right hon. Mr. St. Laurent, a former prime minister said, that as long as a new flag divided Canadians rather than uniting them there should be no change in the flag. I endorse that stand tonight. I would say that 70 per cent of the people in the riding of Bow River and the people of western Canada endorse that stand. I think they are entitled to express their views by means of a plebiscite.
Auguste Choquette: When did he say that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend does not know when he said anything because all he does
Canadian Flag
is mumble from his seat. He never makes a speech in this house that is worth while, and I am tired of that kind of hoodlumism.
I say that this matter should be put to a vote for another reason. Many of us in parliament are more serious than we have ever been before with regard to national unity and confederation. People in western Canada were asleep on this subject, and perhaps in other parts of Canada as well. They are awake today, and they are worried. I say that the responsibility for the delay in this House of Commons rests with the Liberal government because they are the ones who brought in this problem at a time when there is sensitivity about confederation, when every Canadian- French Canadian, English Canadian and every other Canadian-wanted to unify this country, to keep this country together as it was created in 1867. We realize that French Canada and English Canada were one at the time of confederation and then they brought in one province from the maritimes. Canada then grew to ten provinces. We are only going to keep confederation healthy when we take the kind of responsible action that does not erode confederation, particularly at a time when there appears to be some sensitivity about it. This sensitivity has been aggravated because of the political expediency of those people who would like to put in their pocket one group of votes.
I ask this question: How much can the bosom of a nation stand? This is not unifying this country. How much can we stand at this time?


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me just have one word about the committee itself. My friend has said "Carried" again. Again, I say to him that is the kind of nonsense we hear. This is the place where free speech is made possible. When we cease to have free speech-


George James McIlraith: Let us have a vote.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) will be fair. He knows that when he sat in opposition they debated issues on many occasions to the extent that there appeared to be a filibuster.


George James McIlraith: We always let them come to a vote.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think he stood on his rights and had a sense of responsibility, and I suggest to him that I stand on my rights tonight with that same sense of responsibility.


George James McIlraith: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he not agree that other

Canadian Flag
members in parliament have a right, after a full debate, to have the question put to a vote?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. I am glad my good friend asked that question. If I thought tonight that the members who sit on the Liberal side of this house spoke for the people of Canada, we should have a vote now. However, they do not speak for the people of Canada. The hon. member for Ottawa West knows as well as I do that when the Prime Minister spoke of a free vote, he put a gun right at their ears. He said look, if you have a free vote we will shoot your brains out because we will have an election. Is that the kind of mandate the Liberals got from the people? I say to him that is not the kind of responsibility which I know the member for Ottawa West believes we should have so far as members of parliament are concerned. I believe that question was only asked to try to put me off the rail.
I have one more point to make. Why do I say the report of the committee should be examined? I say this in all sincerity and with all the good will that can be mustered in this House of Commons; there was a committee set up and that committee was supposed to be working either in camera or in confidence. There are two kinds of committees. If a committee sits in camera, anything that goes on in that committee must not be told while the committee is sitting. Then there is the kind of committee that is confidential. Anything that goes on in that committee cannot be disclosed. One member of the Liberal party gave an article to a newspaper in this country and leaked all the information from this committee. I am not so sure it was not done deliberately, because I am not so sure this member may not have been dancing to the tune of others. I say this to you, if he knew his responsibilities, having leaked information from a committee sitting in camera or a confidential committee, he should stand in his place tonight and resign. He thought I had forgotten this issue, but that is what he should do.


Some hon. Members:: Resign, resign.


Grant Deachman: I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. On the morning of October 30, which was a Friday morning, I came into this house and at the opening of business I asked if the house wished to send me to the committee on privileges and elections. It was pointed out specifically to the house that if any member had a charge to lay at that time that member should lay a charge. I watched while the hon. member sat in his

seat, just as he is sitting now, with a handful of charges in his hand, ready to rise. However, for some reason or other he could not do so. His pants were nailed to his seat. The opportunity was given to him, but he did not rise, he did not squeak-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I may squeak but I do not leak.


Grant Deachman: I am not finished with my point of order and I have the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not think
this is a question of privilege at all and I do not intend to yield the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. This is one battle that the Speaker is bound to win. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) is entitled to make a statement. He has made a statement and I think we have all heard it. I would hope, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) has only three or four minutes remaining, he would use them very usefully.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any three or four minutes in the past I have used so usefully because I say this man usurped his responsibility. That is my answer in that regard.


Grant Deachman: On a question of personal privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: There is one way to settle the dispute. If any member wishes to charge another and he is quite serious about it, let him move a motion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to you, if we were to move motions every time we wished to criticize the actions of hon. members opposite we would have nothing but motions in the house. But I would say in this matter that his own secretary was typing that very article days before it was published.


Grant Deachman: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this matter was ruled upon by Your Honour. Your Honour will no doubt recall that the hon. gentleman had ample time on that occasion to rise and make his speech-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This line of talk is getting nobody anywhere and I have pointed out the proper procedure to follow. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has made his statement and I think the hon. member for Bow River is entitled to four minutes extra, if he desires them, on account of the interruptions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I must confess, Mr. Speaker, you are always more gracious than I appear to be, and I appreciate your courtesy in this regard. In summary I would say there was never a true mandate given so far as the flag is concerned, and the Canadian people are entitled to a plebiscite. When we hear it said, "Let parliament speak" I am afraid of that because it will speak for only a minority of the people, not because this is a minority government but because hon. members opposite will be speaking for a minority of people in their ridings.
I would ask hon. members to give this serious thought because the Conservative party can only fight this so long. The red ensign may come down on every flagpole in Canada. I would like to be standing in some of the ridings with certain hon. members when that happens. Now I want to end with a little poem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Author?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The author is Eldon Woolliams. It is only four lines but I wrote it in all seriousness:
God and the soldier all men adore In time of trouble-and no more.
For when war is over, and all things righted,
God is neglected-and the old soldier slighted.
Remember that under our flag the liberty and freedom of this country were fought for and maintained by men who gave their lives, and by some who are still with us today and who gave their health.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a small contribution to the debate. I have been somewhat confused by the use which the official opposition makes of the results of Telepoll in connection with the idea of having a plebiscite. I am rather bothered by it because it was only a week or two ago that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), their house leader, was raising questions with regard to this particular program and the questions that it asked.
It is quite true that a week ago Sunday this program reported that it had asked some 1,100 people in major cities across the country whether they would like to have a chance to vote on the flag, in other words a plebiscite, and a majority said they would.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am very pleased hon. members have that much confidence in Telepoll and its surveys, because I do not have that much.
20220-693J
Canadian Flag
Hon. members may wonder why. Just a week before that Telepoll conducted a survey in which it reviewed parliamentary troubles and the fact that we seem to be having difficulties with parliament. It gave the case for Mr. Pearson and the case for Mr. Diefenbaker and then asked this question, "Whose side are you on, Mr. Pearson's or Mr. Diefenbaker's?" Hon. members on the Conservative side should remember that the results were much stronger for Mr. Pearson than they were for Mr. Diefenbaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I suggest that the great faith they put in Telepoll indications in favour of a plebiscite should be immensely weakened, unless they are prepared to accept the result of the poll of the previous week which indicated that the Canadian people are overwhelmingly on the side of the Prime Minister and are overwhelmingly against the Leader of the Opposition in so far as their attitude to parliament is concerned. I just felt I should draw this to the attention of hon. members, since so many of them have used this argument in favour of a plebiscite.
The other point I want to talk about is that a number of hon. gentlemen have tended to speak as veterans and legionnaires and the last hon. gentleman who spoke suggested that by voting for a new flag and having the red ensign come down we would in a sense be doing a disservice and acting disgracefully to the memory of legionnaires and veterans. I do not think that those of us who want a new flag should stand up and pound our chests about the fact that we served during the war, but I would like to tell members of the official opposition that a great many people who belong to the Canadian Legion do not accept the Legion's stand for the red ensign. I am one of them. I can tell hon. members of one Legion post in my riding which has 127 members. The secretary tried to get up a petition to support the Legion's stand on the red ensign but he could only get 26 signatures out of a membership of 127.
I want to make it very clear to members of the official opposition that I think they are being extremely unfair in wrapping themselves in a patriotic and chauvinistic sort of label in this whole question about the flag. We happen to feel, whether we are veterans or not, that we owe no apology to anyone in suggesting a new flag.
I want to touch on another point made by the official opposition which says that in

Canadian Flag
rejecting the red ensign we would somehow be rejecting Christianity. Our triends to the south happen to feel they have a Christian country but I do not think they are going to suggest that the stars and stripes are Christian symbols. I have always felt that stars were the symbol of communist Russia or Mohammedans. If you look at all the national flags in the world, it is remarkable how few Christian countries, or countries which claim to be Christian, have Christian symbols on their flags. I think it is an extremely retrograde argument to suggest that those of us who are in favour of a new flag are willing to turn our backs on our whole Christian heritage.
I should like to suggest that speakers for the opposition have made their point and presented their arguments time and time again. After 29 days, do they not feel they should let us have our chance to vote on this question? We have sat here patiently, the majority of us, listening to them. Now give us an opportunity to vote on the question before the house. If they want to make this stand, they can do so. The previous speaker was proud to point out that he was a member of a major party. Well, I say this to hon. members to my right: You are a major party; this is a decision to be made by parliament; go to the people at the next election on the flag issue; say "If we are elected we shall bring back the red ensign". You can do that. You are a major party. You have a great leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: An election will come sooner or later and that is your opportunity. You may come back here with a majority and bring the red ensign back and throw out this unChristian thing the rest of us want. I suggest you consider that, instead of holding up the majority of the members of this house and so many members of your own party who would like to get on with other things.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member accept a question? I should like to ask him which flag he was willing to accept six months ago?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The flag which was the choice of either the government or the committee which considered it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was no parliamentary committee six months ago.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I know, but there was a government which undertook to bring in a distinc-

tive national flag. They brought one in and I would have been in favour of it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I take it then that the hon. member is prepared to accept any flag which the present government may bring in?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, I am quite prepared to accept any flag which the present government brings in, because the present government has the responsibility; and our responsibility is to vote on their proposal, not to delay endlessly and forever.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Would he tell the house which flag the Royal Canadian Legion has accepted as its flag?


Douglas Mason Fisher: My understanding is that the Royal Canadian Legion wants the red ensign as the Canadian flag. If the hon. member is referring to the allusion I made to a particular branch of the Legion, the executive of this branch thought it would reinforce the dominion command by getting a petition from all its members. And all it could get was 26 out of 127.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I was speaking of the Legion as a whole.


George Robson Muir: After listening to two of the more leather lunged members of the House of Commons I am sure you will think, Mr. Speaker, that anything I have to say is like the calm after the storm.
One of the reasons I am speaking on this question tonight is that I wish to comment on a statement made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) when he told us he was willing to accept any flag which the government might introduce. My contention is that this government has no mandate to bring in a flag for Canada, neither has this parliament. I agree the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) promised a new flag for the Canadian people, provided he was elected as head of the government party. It may be this was one of the reasons he was denied the majority he had sought in the last election. However, neither in his talks to the electorate nor in other public statements did he say he intended to remove completely the symbols of our heritage from the flag, or cut out all vestige of our founding races. I do not believe the government is capable of deciding on a flag which will represent this nation until the end of time.
I should like to read from Quebec L'Action. This is what it had to say about the government's action in this regard:

The confusion of our era, the complexity of situations and the flood of problems require strong governments everywhere. The confusion of the ordinary citizen can only be handled by governments that know where they are going. For months and months, Canada has had the weakest government since confederation.
There is a great deal more along these lines but I wish to confine myself to the subject before us, so I shall not quote further. The actions of the government so far bear out what this article says. First, the party opposite put forward a flag consisting of three leaves on a white background. Eventually they dropped this because it did not have the support of one of the larger minor parties. This was the flag to end all flags. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) who was one of the designers, I understand, got up and told us what a wonderful flag it was. Now he is just as sure that the white flag with the red borders and the maple leaf in the centre is the flag which will fill the bill. So I do not think there is any doubt the government is incapable of presenting a new flag which will represent this nation.
As a matter of fact, government supporters, and particularly members of the government on the front benches, have never given any satisfactory reason for the adoption of a new flag in the first place. In this regard, the Toronto Telegram had this to say:
The Canadian ensign must not be lowered without the consent of the people. The voice of the people can be heard on this issue only through a national plebiscite. Here is a matter which touches the hearts-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. Perhaps I should have brought this to the attention of one or two of the previous speakers. The hon. member will understand there is nothing personal involved, but it is my duty to call the attention of the house to citation 157 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition, subsection (6). Perhaps I should read this.
On the 17th March, 1933, a member quoting a newspaper in debate was ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker who said: "The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper, an author or a book which reflects upon debate before the house, either directly or indirectly is entirely out of order, because members are here to give their own opinion and not to quote the opinion of others. .. .Members may quote an article or a book stating facts, but a commentary on any proceeding or any discussion in the house, with the object of swinging an opinion to one side or the other, is out of order."
In view of what is said in this citation and in several others which could easily be quoted, I conclude it is not in order to quote
Canadian Flag
editorials or articles which would tend to influence a debate one way or the other. Hon. members are called upon to give their own opinions.


George Robson Muir: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. There were only a couple of lines left.
The fact of the matter is that this is far too important a matter to be settled by parliamentary compromise. There might be some sense in having parliament settle the question if there were a possibility of compromise, but this house has shown it is not prepared to compromise in order to settle this matter. No compromise can be reached because the government refuses to make concessions. Compromise means meeting half way or coming to terms by giving up part of a claim. But there is nothing to show that the government was even prepared to give a little, in connection with the stand of the official opposition, in order to reach a compromise on this question. I refer to the situation in the house and in the committee; they were not prepared to compromise. On the other hand, I have not yet heard a supporter of the present proud flag who was not prepared to accept some compromise on it. The only way you can reach a compromise is to have co-operation on both sides, and if one refuses to compromise then compromise is impossible. This, Mr. Speaker, is the situation in this parliament.
The flag was considered by the committee. That committee was chaired by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten), a man for whom all members of the house have a great deal of respect, and I share that respect. I wish I could say the same in regard to some of his colleagues on that committee, but unfortunately I cannot do so. I cannot do so because the committee report showed that there was no attempt on the part of the government members on that committee to compromise, to meet half way the views of those representing the official opposition. I would point out to you, sir, that the official opposition, as of the last election, represents million Canadian people. Are we going to deny the right of 2\ million people to have some say in what is going to be on their flag? I leave that for individual members to think about for themselves.
There were several reasons, of course, why the committee failed. I believe one of the reasons was that it came too late, after positions had hardened in the house. We had asked for a committee at the beginning and I believe that had this been brought about

Canadian Flag
.before all the parties had hardened in their positions we could possibly-and just possibly-have come up with a compromise flag that would have satisfied all Canada. But there were other considerations in the committee. The committee studied over 2,000 new designs. They were given a deadline by the Prime Minister; they were pressed for time. Any hon. member who has sat on a committee faced with a great volume of work coming across the committee desks knows that you cannot do a proper job if you are pressed to get it done by a certain time. I think that had the committee, even this committee, had time to sit until, say, next spring they could even at this late date have brought in some kind of a flag that may have been acceptable.
This brings to mind the question, why this unseemly rush to foist a new flag on the nation? Why is it given the highest priority in government business at this particular time? This is something members of the official opposition just cannot understand, particularly when we should be concentrating on measures to assist our national well-being rather than debating issues that are going to divide our nation. If the Prime Minister had been well advised I think he would have followed the example of another illustrious Liberal prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King. Mr. King carefully avoided any attempt to foist a flag on a country that is initially divided not only racially but linguistically and culturally. Mr. King declined to have debate on this sort of issue because he knew how divisive it would be. He knew that bringing such a matter before parliament could only divide the nation. There was another Liberal prime minister who had sense enough not to bring a new flag design into the House of Commons, whether it was going to be decided by a plebiscite or not. He was smart enough to know that if he brought this divisive problem into the House of Commons it would do the nation no good. Unfortunately the present Prime Minister has ignored these gentlemen who so ably led his party for so many years. This is the tragedy of the present Prime Minister.
We hear from government members, particularly members of the cabinet, when they .are touring the country that the official opposition are obstructing the work of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Robson Muir: I get some agreement from over there, Mr. Speaker, which indicates that they have all been deluded into

thinking that we are obstructing the country's business. But let me point out to hon. members something they should know already, namely that the government decides the priority of business for parliament.


Eric Alfred Winkler: They are supposed to.


George Robson Muir: They initiated this issue of the flag and introduced the debate at this time, in spite of the fact that they had no mandate to do so.


Eric Alfred Winkler: At the expense of the poor eastern farmers, as well.


George Robson Muir: They did it at the expense of getting something done for the poor eastern farmers; and that includes the constituency of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who represents, I understand, a number of those Quebec farmers who would like to have federal assistance.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Where is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays)?


George Robson Muir: In their stubborn insistence, government members want the flag resolution adopted even before they find out whether the majority of Canadians want a new flag. They want this flag for Christmas. I think it would help the country a great deal if somebody whipped up one of these new flags, hung it on the Christmas tree for the Prime Minister and let him have it for Christmas.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Hang the whole government as well.


George Robson Muir: But let us not have people running around this country telling other people that we are obstructing the work of parliament, when the man who can take off the flag priority and bring in legislation for the good of this country is the Prime Minister, who should be sitting over in his seat right now and is not there. I am referring to the leader of the Liberal party.
The government says the flag is more important than the labour code.


Eric Alfred Winkler: No respect for Canada.


George Robson Muir: That it is more important than the new pension scheme.


Eric Alfred Winkler: No respect for the old people.


George Robson Muir: That it is more important than legislation to help the farmers.


Eric Alfred Winkler: No respect for the farmers; that is true.


George Robson Muir: No respect for anyone. Actually there is a growing suspicion, not only in this house but across the country-


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member permit a question?


George Robson Muir: -that the government is mortally afraid of a referendum on the flag issue. I will let the hon. member speak later; he can make a half hour speech. There is a growing suspicion as I say, particularly in view of the recent poll, that the government is much afraid of a referendum on the flag issue because it knows that a great many people would vote to retain our flag in its present form, or at least some modified version of it. The government is afraid, because it has ignored the Canadian way of settling differences. Because we are of different races does not mean we are a melting pot in the sense that we consider our American cousins are. We must settle our differences by compromise because we have to live together and respect each other's wishes. But the government wants to present the Canadian people with an accomplished fact. The government hopes that by giving the Canadian people an accomplished fact now it will be forgotten when the next election is held. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is underestimating the great regard in which this flag is held in the hearts of millions of our people.


Eric Alfred Winkler: History will prove that.


George Robson Muir: On an earlier occasion when speaking on this issue 1 asked the Prime Minister to give consideration to withdrawing the resolution until such time as the people of Canada could voice their opinion on the flag issue. I think it is only fair to ask the same question again. Let us bend all our efforts to bring unity to our country before the one hundredth anniversary of its confederation, and having achieved that unity we will have something to symbolize. Perhaps on that momentous occasion we will be able to raise a new Canadian flag brought about by compromise, and the wisdom of the people of our nation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say I have no apologies for entering the debate at this time. The Conservative party represents at least one third of the voters of Canada, as at the last election. There has been no disposition on the part of the government to take into consideration the views of this large segment of the Canadian people. No compromise has been offered. In fact a com-
Canadian Flag
promise of the views represented in parliament has been rejected both in the house and in the committee. We in the official opposition feel that it is in direct contradiction to our national concept of democratic rights. Completely ignoring the views of any minority is repugnant to us. To ignore the views of a large segment of our population on a matter as important as the flag is nothing less than scandalous. Once again I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his flag resolution, in the interests of national unity, until the people of Canada have indicated their wishes in this matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the raucous applause which greets me from the other side of the house and which pays tribute to me. This is only the second time I have risen in a good many months during which the flag debate has been before the committee and the house. Therefore I think I have some reason for speaking on the matter at this time. There are many aspects of the flag question on which I should like to speak, and I think I can speak with some force and perhaps spirit. But having read your rulings, Mr. Speaker, and knowing that we have an amendment before the house which calls for a plebiscite, so far as it lies within one Irishman to follow the rules of relevancy strictly and to deal strictly with the legality of this amendment I intend to speak only about the plebiscite, which I am sure will be a relief to you, sir, and possibly to others as well.
The first suggestion I would make in the few minutes remaining to me tonight is this. If the government or if parliament had decided to hold a plebiscite, the debate which has been going on for a long while now would have been relatively short. Much as many of us may disapprove of the design of the flag, much as many of us, and I particularly, disapprove of any change to a flag which has been recognized as the flag of this country for many years, we would have been prepared to accept the judgment of the Canadian people had the matter been submitted to them, and had there been an affirmative vote one way or the other as to the design of a flag. That of course has not been permitted, which is one of the main grievances of the official opposition, and I think one of the main grievances of the Canadian people. They are disturbed over the way this matter has been dealt with. If the people had been given the chance to speak and the matter had been referred to the Canadian public and a verdict

Canadian Flag
arrived at, we would not be sitting here tonight debating the flag. Reluctant as some of us may have been to accept that decision, we would have accepted the decision of the majority of the Canadian people.
We are now charged with delay, with filibustering, and so on and so forth. There are two answers regarding whether there has been delay; and undoubtedly there has been a protracted debate. The first answer, which was referred to by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat and I am sure it has also been mentioned many times-one cannot help speaking in this debate without referring to the arguments advanced by other speakers- is that this is an emotional matter, as everyone in this house realizes, and because of the feelings of one's own constituents one has to speak and express one's views.
But this flag issue should never have been brought into parliament at this time. There is no reason in the world why, in the middle of a legislative program which had been outlined to us, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) should throw in this flag issue, just as though he had thrown the overalls into Mrs. Murphy's chowder-and it has created almost as bad a smell. That is one reason for this protracted debate at this time.
Having brought in this issue, disrupted parliament without any authority or mandate and, I say kindly, without any judgment, we have had this issue thrown at us by this government; yet when we ask that the Canadian people be given a chance to express an opinion, we are denied that request, at least up to now. I would judge from the way in which hon. members opposite treat this amendment, that it is their intention to vote it down, so that we will have no plebiscite granted to the Canadian people on this matter.
Those are two reasons for this long debate and delay. If this plebiscite had been accepted I am sure the prolonged debate would not have taken place, but that the issue could have been decided within a few days rather than in as many weeks. Under those circumstances the responsibility for any delay which may have occurred rests squarely on the shoulders of members opposite, and particularly on the shoulders of the right hon. Prime Minister, who has projected this flag debate at this time, disrupting the whole procedure of Canadian parliament. This is a highly emotional issue which has disrupted the nation and created difficulty for each and every one of us in our constituencies and in our own hearts and minds. We have been asked to deal with this issue in short order and pro-

duce a flag by Christmas. The people of Canada do not appreciate having a flag rammed down their throats in the way in which this matter has been handled.
We have been given reasons why a plebiscite cannot be held. We have been told that in the first place a plebiscite is contrary to Canadian practice and procedure. Some of us here, and certainly one or two members opposite, yesterday took part in the Ottawa civic elections as ratepayers and voters. What did we vote for at that time? We voted for individuals, and also as to whether there should be fluoridation. Surely that was a referendum, and is a referendum not a form of a plebiscite? We also voted as to whether or not there should be Sunday sports. Was that not a plebiscite? We are told that a plebiscite is contrary to Canadian practice. That is nonsense, when right here in this city gentlemen on that side as well as on this side took part in a referendum or plebiscite- call it what you will. There is no basis for the suggestion that a plebiscite is contrary to Canadian practice.
V/e are told that we cannot depart from accepted practice; but what is this government doing? It is departing from accepted practice in every piece of legislation it proposes. What is co-operative federalism except departure from an accepted practice? What about the various other matters which have been brought before this house? Certainly to some extent they have been departures from ordinary practice. Surely pension bill No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 and, I suppose, No. 4, if that is a matter still on the back burner, are departures from the accepted practice of this parliament. I suggest there is absolutely no justification for the argument that we cannot hold a plebiscite because it is contrary to the ordinary and conventional practice of this country.
We have also been told that a plebiscite would be disruptive of national unity. National unity is something very near to the minds and hearts I am sure of all members of this house. I wonder whether one promotes national unity by injecting a highly emotional and disruptive issue of this kind at this time and in this manner into the business of parliament, while at the same time suggesting that by holding a plebiscite the national unity would be disrupted. This is being done at a time when members of this house do not have the authority or a mandate to decide that such and such a flag shall be adopted as the national flag of Canada. Surely that method of procedure is not conducive to the attain-

ment of national unity. Any suggestion in that vein is sheer nonsense.
Regardless of the merits of a referendum, no one can tell me that if the Canadian people are consulted and allowed to make a decision on an issue of this kind it is going to be disruptive of national unity. Certainly a decision made by a group of men sitting on the treasury benches, accepted by the majority of a house of minorities, is not the way to achieve national unity. One does not achieve national unity by ramming something such as a flag down the throats of the Canadian public. That is the attitude taken by the government, and that is all that can be said for it.
Since there is to be no plebiscite and the Canadian people are not to be consulted, I wonder where this flag is to be flown. It will be flown over the peace tower, of course, when and if it is authorized by the parliament of Canada. My friends to my left in the N.D.P. section of the house have said that Conservatives are beginning to adopt Mr. Mackenzie King as one of their patron saints. I would not go that far, but it was Mr. Mackenzie King who, by his order in council, said that the flag which is flown today over the peace tower is to be the flag of Canada until it is changed by a decision of the parliament of Canada. The flag to be flown after such a decision is not the flag chosen by this house, but a flag chosen by this house and by the members of that other place. I do not know by what legerdemain this proposed white flag will fly by Christmas. However, when it does fly, if ever,
Business of the House it will fly over public buildings in Canada, but where else? Will it fly in Newfoundland or will the union jack fly there? Will it fly in Quebec?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


George Clyde Nowlan: I hear some hon. members say "yes". I can tell you, sir, that it will not fly universally in the maritime provinces, nor will it fly universally across Canada generally, because it will not be the adopted flag of the Canadian people. We will set back Canadian acceptance of a Canadian flag by at least 25 years as a result of the way in which this government has dealt with the matter, jamming it down the throats of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I may ask the house leader a question? I am wondering for obvious reasons whether the government will consider asking this house to set aside tomorrow and perhaps the next day to deal with the Canada labour code?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I hope that tomorrow we can proceed to a consideration of the Canada labour code legislation at the conclusion of the flag debate.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday. December 9, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. For weeks, and even months, the House of Commons has been witnessing an unparalleled debate which is completely paralysing the business of this house and transforming it into a debating society where it is impossible to reach any decision whatsoever. Freedom of speech must be respected, but we should not act in such a way that this house be deprived of its main duty, which consists in making decisions.
That is why I deem that in this discussion on the flag the whole gamut of opinions has been heard, and should we extend it any further we would but prejudice the rights of parliament and the higher interests of our country.
Therefore, I believe that it is my duty to rise on a question of privilege and invite the Prime Minister, or one of his ministers, to give notice that he will make use of standing order 33 to have this question settled without further delay by applying the rule of closure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not speaking with the authority of this party.



MR. DEACHMAN-REMARK IN DEBATE BY MEMBER FOR BOW RIVER

Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. As reported in Hansard for Tuesday, December 8, at page 10956 the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) said these words:
Well, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to you, if we were to move motions every time we wished to criticize the actions of hon. members opposite we would have nothing but motions in the house.
Then he went on to make the following specific statement with respect to myself:
But I would say in this matter that his own secretary-
That is, my secretary:
-was typing that very article days before it was published.
This refers to the article over my by-line in the Citizen of October 29. This is false; there is not a shred of evidence for it. I am quite sure that my secretary, if she had to, would give affidavits to that effect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Grant Deachman: Sir, I ask that this statement be retracted. It is a false statement and I cannot let it stand on the record. It imputes things to me that I do not want remaining on the record, and it is completely false, without a shred of evidence. I ask that the hon. gentleman in all honesty retract the statement, which he cannot substantiate in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, all I can say in answer to a phony question of privilege is that there has been another leak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker. I request a retraction and I appeal to you for a retraction of this statement, which is not a fact but an outright falsehood.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You had better lay a charge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to call to the attention of hon. members in the house citation 145 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which says:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers in the Canadian Commons that a statement by an honourable member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted, but it is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. 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.

Question of Privilege
Various references are quoted in that citation. In view of the statement by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra I suggest to hon. members that we follow the direction suggested by Beauchesne, namely that his statement should be accepted. If any hon. member does not care to accept that statement, then another proceeding is open to him. That proceeding is to move a motion on his own responsibility.


David Vaughan Pugh: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Pickersgill:: There is no point of order.


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes, there is. On a point of order, this statement was made yesterday in the House of Commons. The hon. gentleman who rose just now on a question of privilege should have risen at that time. Obviously he was a little confused in his mind as to whether he had done it. He should have risen at that time and protested. A question of privilege certainly cannot arise at this hour, one day later.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the hon. member has a good question of privilege and has risen at the first available opportunity. Any hon. member is entitled to review what has been recorded in Hansard.


Thomas Miller Bell: He was here last night.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the matter has been satisfactorily settled.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Grant Deachman: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the statement made in this house is false. I have asked for a retraction of what is a false statement. By affidavit-and I could bring a bushel of affidavits-I could prove that this statement is false. I do not want a false statement standing against my name on the record of the House of Commons, and with all respect I ask the hon. gentleman to retract his statement, as I think any hon. gentleman in this house should, having made a statement of that kind.


Mr. Speaker:: Might I suggest this to the hon. member for Bow River. There was much heat in the discussion last evening. I happened to be in the Chair at the time, and perhaps it was because I was in the Chair that we had such a heated discussion; I do not know. But I suggest to the hon. member that in the circumstances he should, as ac-

cording to the authorities he must, take the word of the hon. member with respect to the sentences complained of.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have always appreciated the gracious manner in which you have regulated the procedure of this house, but I have no hesitation whatever in staying with the remarks I made last evening.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what are the courses now open to me respecting this false statement, which stands on the record and for which the hon. gentleman intends to make no apology whatever.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have heard enough from two hon. members at least to pose a question which I should like to study in light of the authorities, so I will take the matter under advisement and try to bring in a decision as quickly as possible.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
CHANGES IN COMMITTEE PERSONNEI^-MOTION TO PROCEED TO ORDERS OF THE DAY
James Edgar Walker: That the names of Messrs. Woolliams, Fairweather, Nugent, Rheaume, Simpson, Hales, Munro, Rideout, Byrne, Brewin and Martin (Timmins) be substituted for those of Messrs. Grafltey, Irvine, Millar, Muir (Lisgar), Noble, Stenson, Foy, Laverdiere, Habel, Orlikow and Knowles on the standing committee on industrial relations.
That the names of Messrs. Howe (Wellington-Huron), Rideout and Leboe be substituted for those of Messrs. Paul, Klein, and Marcoux on the special joint committee on the Canada pension plan.
That the names of Messrs. Leduc and Cyr be substituted for those of Messrs. Laniel and Lessard (St. Henry) on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
That the name of Mr. Kelly be substituted for that of Mr. Munro on the standing committee on banking and commerce.
That the names of Messrs. More and Walker be substituted for those of Messrs. Chatterton and Cameron (High Park) on the standing committee on external affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the
provisions of standing order 44 to move what is known as a superseding motion. Perhaps I should read standing order 44, which is as follows:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the house.

Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 195, gives us direction with regard to the moving of such motions and states that motions of this kind are as follows:
"That consideration of the question be postponed to-(date)." "That the orders of the day be read." "That the house proceed to (name another order); or that the house proceed to the next business."
I would also draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that on May 14, 1956 a motion of the kind I propose to move was moved in this house. On that occasion the then government whip, Mr. W. G. Weir, had moved a motion for the substitution of a number of names on committees. Hon. Walter Harris, seconded by the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) moved, under standing order 44, the following motion:
That we do now proceed to the orders of the day.
That was an undebatable motion which was carried, and we jumped over all the intervening items and went straight into government business. It is therefore my contention that one has the right today, on this motion moved by the government whip, to present a similar motion.
My motion could read exactly as Mr. Harris' motion read, that the house do now proceed to the orders of the day, but I point out that last night at ten o'clock the government house leader indicated that if we did finish the flag debate today the item of government business to be called would be order No. 77, having to do with the Canada labour code. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, believing that this motion is in order, believing that it has precision in that it directs precisely what we would go to rather than just that we move to something else or that we adjourn, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas):
That the house do now proceed to government order No. 77, namely "House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-126".


Mr. Speaker:: I listened with a great deal of attention to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, especially when he was reading standing order 44. Perhaps I might respectfully suggest, and I think I am right in this procedure, that the Chair would feel better about the motion if it did not seem to conflict with standing order 18, and if it were changed to read that this house now proceed to the orders of the day. I do not think it is necessary at this time to read standing order 18, but I make that suggestion
Business of the House
to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of standing order 18 (2) when I drafted my motion, and in a sense I alluded to it when I pointed out that the government house leader indicated last night that the first item of government business to be called after the flag debate would be government order No. 77. For that reason I felt it appropriate to name in my motion the precise item, but if Your Honour feels that it trespasses on order 18 (2), which gives the government the authority to call government items in the sequence it thinks fit, I would be willing to accept the change in my motion which the Chair has suggested. In view of the announcement made by the government house leader last night it would have the same effect if my motion were worded as Your Honour suggests and we were to proceed immediately to government orders.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the government will reserve its right under rule 18 (2) to call government orders in such sequence as the government may think fit.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind the President of the Privy Council that this is not a debatable motion at this time. It is my duty to put this motion, which I believe to be in order, before the house. Then the house will dispose of it as it desires. It is moved by Mr. Knowles, seconded by Mr. Douglas, that the house do now proceed to orders of the day. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


David Rodger Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I was paired and did not vote. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the motion moved by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker). Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Walker) agreed to.



CANADIAN FLAG

[Stage Direction]
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. DECEMBER 9, 1964
Batten that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
At the beginning of this afternoon's sitting the deputy leader of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bal-cer), suggested and asked that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who was not at his seat then, should move some kind of motion to apply definitely the rule of closure in the case of the flag debate. I strongly support what the deputy leader of the official opposition suggested this afternoon, to the effect that a member of the government or the Prime Minister himself should move immediately a motion to apply the rule of closure so that the matter of the flag can be dealt with once and for all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) has the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, are these Christmas carols which we are having from the lower end of the chamber, or are these hon. members motivated by Christmas spirits or otherwise in engaging in this performance at the moment?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Christmas nuts.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes. At ten o'clock last night, Mr. Speaker, when I discontinued the remarks I was making on the amendment which is before us I had suggested that a decision on this matter had to be made by parliament because that is set forth in the order in council which established our flag. I refer to the order in council passed under a preceding Liberal government under the aegis of Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, which stated that this flag would be the flag of Canada until the parliament of Canada decided otherwise.
I am a little intrigued as to just what the mechanics are to be whereby the parliament of Canada defines and fixes the flag of this nation. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, we have before us at the moment a motion for concurrence in the report of
Canadian Flag
a committee, and it is that motion which we are debating today and have been debating for the last few days. Is this motion going to be construed as a definitive action on the part of the House of Commons to establish the flag of Canada, or is there going to be some other motion following this or some other legislative process brought in which will help establish this flag?
After all, this motion deals only with the report of a committee of the House of Commons. The parliament of Canada consists, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, of Her Majesty the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. I am wondering what action will be required in this matter on the part of the Senate. Are they going to have a concurring resolution, or just what will be done to establish a legislative decision of the parliament of Canada.
As I have said, all we have before us at the moment is a motion for concurrence in the report of a committee of the House of Commons. Surely that is not going to be the end of this matter. I think before we have a vote and finalize this debate the government should take the House of Commons into its confidence as to the legislative processes to be taken to establish this flag once we have adopted, if we do adopt concurrence in the report of this committee.
Certainly as far as I know the hon. gentlemen in the other place have not had a committee dealing with this matter. Are we going to ask them to concur in the report of a committee on which they had no representation and of which they have no knowledge? Are they going to set up a committee to study this matter? What are to be the mechanics to establish this as an action of the parliament of Canada? This is something on which I think we have the right to be informed, because this matter involves more than just passing a motion.
The hon. member for Port Arthur, who I am sorry to see is not in his seat now, said last night "After all, the government will change. A Conservative government might be back in office", as I am sure it will be following the next election. Then, he said, that government could bring in another resolution on another flag, or another legislative enactment, re-establishing the red ensign as the flag of Canada.
In the opinion of this party we cannot change flags in the way some hon. members would apparently change shirts. We think there is something more important than

Canadian Flag
that in a flag. If parliament decides on a flag I think that flag is binding on the people of Canada, and we certainly do not want to be put in the disgraceful position of shifting flags every time there is a change of government. So there is no substance whatever in the fact that because, generally speaking, we are individually in support of the red ensign or some modification thereof-a design showing our historic traditions-if the government changes and this party comes back into office the flag of Canada will also be changed according to our will at the time.
A flag is a much more important matter than that. We are legislating not only for the people of today but for Canadians of the future. I think this question must be treated much more seriously than it has been treated heretofore. Therefore we are particularly interested in knowing by what legislative process the parliament of Canada is going to express its judgment regarding what should be done.
The flag proposed in the report of the committee has had removed from it all the emblems, the traditions and the heritages of which I think all Canadians are proud. We resent that. We do not think we should have a flag of that nature. If this flag with all the tradition and history of a century or more is going to be hauled down simply because the House of Commons passes a resolution, and perhaps the Senate passes another resolution, then that is a very undignified and improper way to change a flag bearing the traditional emblems of a century or more.
I just now recall a few lines from the poem by Charles Wolfe, "The Burial of Sir John Moore after Corunna" as follows:
We buried him darkly at dead of night,
The sods with our bayonets turning,
By the struggling moonbeam's misty light And the lanthorn dimly burning.
This government wants to bury this flag by the dark shades of night without any more action than a resolution in the House of Commons. That, sir, is not good enough. In the old days of imperialism when one nation won a war, defeating another, and the flag of the defeated nations was taken down a guard of honour was supplied by those who had won the battle, and they saluted the old flag as it was taken from the mast and a new one was hoisted. We are going to have nothing of that kind apparently, but instead a resolution passed by a possible majority in a minority House of Commons. The resolution if passed by hon. members

would then be sent to the other place where somehow or other these things are all going to be cooked together and we are going to have a new national flag.
That is one of the main reasons we have been anxious in this party to have a plebiscite. If a plebiscite is held and we obtain the concurrence of the majority of Canadian people, as strongly as any one of us feels individually on this matter, the people of Canada having had an opportunity of speaking, we will be prepared to accept their choice. However, without that opportunity, and particularly because of the vague and indefinite procedure before us, and I do not think even government members know what is to be the procedure, we are not prepared to accept a change in this way.
We as Canadians I think should learn something more of our past, and we as Canadians have been lacking in our appreciation and recollection of history and tradition. We have been poor in maintaining our traditions, historical sites and monuments, as well as about other matters which contribute to the tradition of a nation. I remember that a few years ago we had here in the city of Ottawa the old Supreme Court of Canada building. It was a blacksmith's shop or a stonecutter's hut which became the Supreme Court of Canada building. It was a rather poor and meagre building, but in that building was enacted a great deal of the constitutional history of this country. A few years ago we tore that building down because we wanted to make parking spaces for 12 or 14 automobiles, and one of the great historical sites of this country disappeared.
I also remember a strange debate that took place in this chamber, and I am sure the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mc-Ilraith) will also remember it, because he and I crossed swords emphatically on that occasion, regarding the demolition of the west block. The government at that time was determined to have it destroyed and some of us kept the debate on those estimates going so long, parliament was dissolved before the estimates were passed and the building was not destroyed. That is why today we still have that beautiful building rather than one of those ghastly monstrosities of yellow, black, purple and red sheets of plastic overlooking Wellington street.
I have mentioned those things as examples of the fact that we have been very derelict in our attempts to preserve tradition. I suppose it is in keeping with that practice and

philosophy, or the lack thereof, that we propose now to go ahead and tear down our flag, erecting a new one without any tradition, sentiment or regard for our history. I think that a large number of people are not prepared to do that at this moment. I am not suggesting for a moment that our flag should be the red ensign, per se. As I said last night, and on other occasions, I personally prefer the red ensign but I do not care whether our new flag is the red ensign or some modification thereof, but I do believe that a great majority of Canadians, regardless of race, want to see something of our traditions and history emblazoned or recorded on that flag.
While this is not the place to discuss designs I should like to mention that I saw a flag several days ago in a picture appearing in the Dartmouth Free Press of Nova Scotia which was proposed by a naval officer. It was a distinctive flag with a large maple leaf on it. I think it was printed in black and white, as the Dartmouth Free Press I do not believe has a colour press. The flag had a large maple leaf and superimposed thereon a small union jack, and superimposed on the union jack a large fleur-de-lis which maintained at least some reference to the two great founding races of this country. Somebody has suggested that to adopt this kind of flag would evidence traces of feudalism or subservience. I wonder how many Canadians believe that to be the case. I do not believe there is one in 10,000 who would believe that, because if this is subservience I should remind the members of this house of the flag of South Africa, where the bitter memories of the Boer war are more alive than any bitter memories we have in this country. On that flag they have the flag of the Capetown colony and the Orange free state, with a small union jack as well.
Those are some of the things which I think warrant this matter being referred to the people in the form of a plebiscite, so that a decision can be made without haste but carefully, and after due consideration. Those are some of the reasons we in this party have urged that there should not be haste, but rather a referral of the question to the Canadian people. This is a highly emotional issue.
Sometimes I become irritated by people who assume that we who speak in this house on this issue do so for some political purpose. Politics do enter into discussions in this chamber whatever is being considered, but I suggest that there has not been politics, in the
Canadian Flag
political sense of the word, behind the reaction taken by most of us on this flag issue. This issue means a great deal to us individually, and a great deal to our constituents. It means a great deal not only to Canadians of today but Canadians of the future, and that is why we have urged time and time again that there be a plebiscite.
If there is not to be a plebiscite, Mr. Speaker, I guess we have to accept that verdict, but certainly we cannot be accused of being poor Canadians or obstructionists because of the attitude we have taken up to this time. I have attempted last night and today to put my own views forward on this issue because personally I believe that hundreds of thousands of people feel very strongly about this issue, and I think their opinions should be voiced in this house.


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the amendment to the motion to concur in the committee report I feel that I should first of all place on record my intention. I intend to vote against the committee report, as a result of which I feel responsible for setting forth some of the reasons for my decision in this regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I bring to the attention of the hon. member that the debate at this stage is not on whether the hon. member should vote for or against the report of the committee but how he is going to vote on the question of the amendment to the motion for concurrence in the report.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I was coming to that immediately, Mr. Speaker. I was about to follow up by saying that I intend to vote for the amendment put forward by the official opposition asking that the whole question be referred back to the committee and that a plebiscite be held to determine Canada's national flag.
There are a number of things I want to put forward with regard to why there should be a plebiscite. I want to refer first of all to something that was said last night by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). All of us, of course, cannot be television personalities or newspaper columnists. For a long time I have not had very much faith in newspaper columnists, including the hon. member for Port Arthur. He makes the suggestion that we should go ahead and get this thing over with, and when the Conservatives come back into power they can bring

Canadian Flag
in another flag resolution. This matter touches the emotions of all Canadians but he would toss it off very lightly. We expect this kind of attitude from the Liberal party but I always thought that the New Democratic party was a little more sincere.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Ha, ha.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: The hon. lady says "ha, ha".


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I sure do-ha, ha, ha.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I should like to direct some remarks particularly to her in regard to the question of a plebiscite. We in western Canada are under the handicap of having no news media that will bother to print the truth. I refer to the Southam chain of newspapers. The people of Alberta, more particularly of northern Alberta, do not receive a proper interpretation of what goes on here in Ottawa. The Edmonton Journal absolutely refuses-I am talking about a plebiscite.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member says what he has been saying is pertinent to the subject, but the Chair has some doubts about it. I would ask him to relate the remarks he is making now to the particular amendment before the house.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that the situation we are faced with in northern Alberta because of the attitude of the Edmonton Journal is that many people do not appreciate what the stand of our party has been in regard to the flag question. They do not appreciate that we are asking for a plebiscite. This is my entire point when I am talking about the attitude of this chain of newspapers in Alberta. They are so biased that it is really pathetic. They are nothing but apologists for the Liberal party and they really have not got very much to apologize for, Mr. Speaker, have they?
In that part of the country we have this situation, when the fact of the matter is we have been telling qur constituents that we want a plebiscite because this issue is an emotional one and one that should be decided upon by the people as a whole. We have been arguing off and on for a number of months about redistribution and its effect on representation in the house, and this has a very direct relationship to the whole question of whether or not we should have a plebiscite on the emotional issue of the flag. The whole question is whether or not we in Alberta are entitled to two more seats and two 
more members to vote against what the government is now trying to put forward as a national flag.
The strange thing is that we have asked the government time and time again for a plebiscite to decide Canada's flag. We have said that this is an emotional issue, that it means a lot to the people of Canada, that it cannot be decided in the heat of what I call the Ottawa fever, in the biased political hotbed that is Ottawa. This matter should be above politics and it has not been. Let us put the blame where it properly lies. The government introduced this divisive issue into the house and they have carried on with it because in my opinion they do not have any legislation ready to put before the house. They charge us with being obstructionists and filibustering on the question of the flag, and whether or not there should be a plebiscite. I charge them with having no legislation available, no plans available-


George James McIlraith: Give us a chance to call our legislation-


Hugh Macarthur Horner: -to help our people.


George James McIlraith: -by voting on the flag.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Why did the
President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) not stand up and answer the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) when he wanted to know how the government was going to go about implementing this thing? Why does he not take us into his confidence and tell us how he is going to do all these things?


An hon. Member:: He does not know.


George James McIlraith: Because it is irrelevant to the debate before the house.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I bow to the
hon. gentleman's greater knowledge.


George James McIlraith: You should follow the rules occasionally.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: If we could get back to the question period there are some interesting questions we would like to ask the hon. gentleman, too.


An hon. Member:: Who else got furniture?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: My hon. friend says "Who else got furniture". That would be a nice question.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question. If his party wanted to have a question period over the past week why

did his party not agree to the proposition for a question period put forward by the Prime Minister?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: The hon.
gentleman, of course, is in charge of the business of the house and he could have arranged this very easily.


George James McIlraith: I asked why your party would not agree to the proposition put forward by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to both hon. members that the subject matter the house is supposed to be considering now is not the order of business but the question of an amendment to a motion having reference to the holding of a plebiscite.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. I want to deal with the other aspect of why the Liberal government refuses to give the people of Canada the opportunity to decide on their flag by a plebiscite. Over the years the Liberals have ruled this country by dividing it. In my opinion the basic principle of Liberalism is that the country has to be divided and in political chaos and then they can rule. This arrogant bunch think that only they have any ability or should be allowed to rule in Canada. I suggest that these people have deliberately created some of the political chaos in Canada by perpetuating the flag debate and refusing to accede to our request for a plebiscite. They have done this deliberately because they think they can get away with the same old Liberal tactics of dividing the country. "Divide and rule; keep the people upset and we will rule." This has been the Liberal attitude for a long, long time. But I think that the people of Canada will have another decision to make about what the government has been doing over the past 18 months, about their many failures.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
seems to me that the hon. member's speech is not relevant in any way to the question before the house.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: With respect, Your Honour, what I am saying, and I can put it in very simple language, is that the Liberals have refused our request for a plebiscite because they would like to create political chaos in this country and portray us as obstructionists, as the people who are filibustering the flag debate. I say that we need a plebiscite on the flag to take the issue out of parliament so that the people of Can-
Canadian Flag
ada can decide on what their national emblem shall be, without any of these side issues coming into the picture. I say to you very respectfully, sir, that this has an important bearing on the whole question of a national flag and whether or not we should have a plebiscite. I say this is the meat of the problem. Why do they refuse us a plebiscite? They have no answer other than to say, "You are the elected representatives and you should decide."
I disagree with that on a number of counts. The first is that this House of Commons is not truly representative. Redistribution has not taken place and therefore it is not a question we should decide, but one that should be decided by a plebiscite. My second reason for disagreeing is that the Liberal party has created so much political chaos that the people of Canada have no idea what the true situation is. A situation which is so highly emotionally charged should not be decided here.
This is a minority government. This is a government of regionalization. This is a government which does not have a mandate to make this kind of decision. They have not made any other decisions-why should they make this one?
The roving Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) is not in his place at the moment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You have not been here for a month.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) keeps interrupting. Perhaps we should see about some of the things that the truth squad should have been investigating. The first point I am making is that this is a minority government, and the second concerns the political chaos which has been stirred up by the Liberal party and the Liberal press.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Somebody says order. I am suggesting the people of Canada do not have a true appreciation of what is going on or of why we want a plebiscite. All this is relevant to the question now before us. I suggest one of the things we should endeavour to accept in public life is responsibility, and I suggest the press has lain down on its responsibility in reporting the flag debate. I suggest further that the press is a bought press, that there is not any freedom in it any more. There certainly is not any freedom in the press which serves my area, especially on this particular question of

Canadian Flag
whether or not we would be better off to have a plebiscite. The press in my area publishes articles which it thinks are favourable to the Liberal party, but will not publish anything that is unfavourable.
Earlier this year we talked about a plebiscite on a different flag which had three maple leaves on it. I think the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) will recall the three maple leaves. We hold a similar position in respect to this flag which has one maple leaf, but I do not know whether that minister has ordered a number of these new flags. Perhaps having been once burned he is going to wait and see. However, I am sure he will keep his eye on the business part of the transaction and see the flags are got when they are needed. The question is whether it should be up to him and his colleagues to decide the flag, rather than the people of Canada.


Mr. Godin:: What about parliament?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I suggest this is an emotional issue which parliament should not be asked to solve. It is not a question that should come before parliament.


Gilles Grégoire: Are you afraid to take your responsibility?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: It is not a question that should come before parliament because it is one-


Gilles Grégoire: Are you afraid?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: -that crosses party lines. It is an emotional one.


Yvon Dupuis: May I ask a question?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Surely.


Yvon Dupuis: Why is it that when your party was in power for six years it did not hold a referendum? Why did it not give the Conservative member from St. Boniface the chance to pass his resolution dealing with a plebiscite on the flag and the national anthem? Why didn't you support the bill I introduced in 1961 asking the Conservative Tory government to use the national census to ask the feelings of each Canadian on those national symbols? You could have asked a few questions from door to door and it would not have cost a cent. You were in power then and you had six years in which to do that. You didn't do anything when in power, and now in opposition, you want our Liberal government to do what your Conservative government refused to do.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I did not know whether the Minister without Portfolio was going to make a speech or not. There is a very simple answer-


Yvon Dupuis: Answer my question.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: If you will allow me. There is a very simple answer, that we had a flag passed by a Liberal government in 1945, under order in council, and about which we were quite happy. We had-


Yvon Dupuis: That is not the truth.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: -a national flag-


Yvon Dupuis: That is not the truth.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: -a flag which represented our history, a flag which did not allow various entrepreneurs to make a profit on it, a flag which suited Canada.


Yvon Dupuis: Answer my question.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I did.


Osias.-J. Godin: The hon. member has just said the Conservative government was very willing to go along with the 1945 order in council. Why should he feel his party should choose the flag of this country?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I did not say
our party was going to choose anything. I said we were quite happy with the flag we had and still have.


Yvon Dupuis: What about your Tory convention asking for a distinctive flag?


An hon. Member:: Why don't you go back to Africa?


Hugh John Flemming: Go to
the jungle.


Yvon Dupuis: Answer that question.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: The minister, of course, is in the flag business and should know all about these things. I do not know whether he is in the furniture business or not. We have not heard that.


Yvon Dupuis: You were my best publicity agent.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: But I do know that I can fight under the red ensign, that this is a flag which I can live under.


Gilles Grégoire: That is a British flag. That is the British naval flag; it is not a distinctive flag.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: So far as I am
concerned-


Clifford Silas Smallwood: A lot of us fought under it, which is more than you guys did.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I would like to point out to all hon. members, including those sitting close to the hon. member who has the floor, that he should be allowed to continue his remarks uninterrupted.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Do you not think that there are many repetitions? To my knowledge, it has been repeated at least 50 times that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) sold stickers, and at least 200 times that, formerly, there were three maple leaves and now there is only one. If they have nothing new to say, it seems to me you should call them to order and demand that they put an end to these repetitions which are against the rules.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: This is the same hon. gentleman who stood up in his place and said, "Unless our little party is recognized we will filibuster for 100 days."


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I did not say that; the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) did, and said at that time: I shall fight to the death to ensure that their rights are not recognized. Unfortunately, he did not die and our rights have been recognized.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I see my hon. friends are a little touchy on that subject. They are a little touchy on the question of whether or not they should break away from that great and noble party we know so well in Alberta, which the leader of the Credit-istes said set them back 10 years. He said other things as well. He said that Social Credit nationally was a fizzle and they should have a new party. My hon. friend keeps talking. He likes to interrupt but he does not like being interrupted.


Gilles Grégoire: You did not dare to interrupt me yesterday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) has the floor and I again ask hon. members not to interrupt him.
Canadian Flag


Hugh Macarthur Horner: If I may go on,


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Gregoire@: We have heard it about 25 times.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: We have seen this flag debate used as a political football by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). We have seen him trekking around the country with a flag kit and new words to "O' Canada" when he should have been here looking after his ministers. But we have not seen any major legislation put before us. We have not seen any major policy changes.


An hon. Member:: You have not been here.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I have been getting some furniture ready.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: We have seen a government which has wallowed through 18 months of administration like a bull moose in some of the swamps in Jasper-Edson, not making any decision except for this one petulant decision that we must debate this flag issue. This is the essence of the argument. Should we as a country be content to follow the lead of a minority government which has not proven itself, which has not done anything at all for the nation? Should we accept its word on the subject of a national symbol, or should we ask the people? That is the essence of the argument. We say-


Gilles Grégoire: Let's vote.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Ah, the parrots in the corner are getting lively again. They say "Let's vote". I say, let the people vote on it. They are the ones who will have to live under this flag for years to come. We do not believe a flag should be changed every time the government changes. After all, if that were the practice we would need to change the flag fairly soon. That would not be a good practice to follow at all. Let us hold a plebiscite at the time of the next election and allow the people to decide what our national symbol should be. Let us put forward three or four distinctive designs, preferably designs which have something to do with our heritage, something to do with the history of Canada. If hon. members opposite do not like the history of Canada, I am sorry for them. We in western Canada come from people who fought for their country by hard work and toil. We come from a pioneering stock. The people of Canada feel very strongly about this question of a plebiscite. They are in favour of deciding it in the way this amend-

Canadian Flag
ment proposes. Speaking for myself, I have no confidence whatever that this government is able to handle a matter so important as the choosing of a flag. The government has been unable to handle anything else.
There are no specialists when it comes to deciding upon a flag. Each one of us has to decide for himself on this particular emotional question. I will say this to the house: If people were to come in from outside Canada and try to tear down our red ensign and trample it in the mud we would resist them, we would fight them. But here we find the Liberal party doing the same thing from inside Canada, yet they want us to accept it lying down.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: We have no confidence in this government. The people of Canada generally have no confidence in this government. We are getting less confident every day. As new revelations come out we are more sure than ever that this government should not be allowed to decide what our flag should be, but that we should put the question to the people and let them decide the issue.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to receive and answer a question from the minister?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Certainly.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said a moment ago that the Liberal party had chosen a flag in 1945. Is he not aware that, when making this decision the government said that the red ensign could be used until parliament decided to select a new flag? Why did the hon. member conceal this fact, when he is or should be aware of it?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I am not hiding any facts. Of course, the very terms of the order in council were "until parliament should decide otherwise".


Yvon Dupuis: You should have said that.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I am saying it now for your benefit. I am also saying to the hon. member that it was his parliament and his Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who brought this flag debate before the House

of Commons, in place of legislation which would be of benefit to this country. It is his Prime Minister who is running around the country with a flag kit. It is his party which has made parliament the shambles it is today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: The seals laugh. This country is governed by an executive council or the cabinet. For heaven's sake let us have some leadership out of them, something more than a complete shambles on the treasury benches.


Mr. R. E. Forbes (Dauphin):: I am taking part in this flag debate because I think this is one of the most important issues to be decided in this country in a long time and I believe it should be decided by the people of Canada by a plebiscite and not by the members of a minority government.
Naturally, as a descendant of United Empire Loyalist stock, I feel that I should participate because my forebears played an important part in the history and development of this country. Further, I think it is important that any design chosen as a flag for Canada should embody a symbol of our sovereignty and I believe the Canadian red ensign is a symbol of the united effort of the English and French settlers which made Canada the great country it is today. I have a right to express my own beliefs and I feel it is only fair that the Canadian people should have a right to express theirs through a plebiscite.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has stated that he introduced the flag resolution in fulfilment of an election promise. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that no mention of a flag was made in the federal constituency of Dauphin during the election campaigns of either 1962 or 1963. However, I can point out that the Liberal candidate in the Dauphin constituency and others who spoke on behalf of the Liberal party promised, among other things, a two price system for wheat, and a support price for beef, hogs, eggs and other farm products to be based on regional averages, and calculated quarterly; they promised also they would study the rough fish problems of commercial fishermen and that they would launch a program to provide free milk to school children across the country.
I can assure the Prime Minister that if he would bring forward this legislation which would mean something to the farmers of Canada and to our economy, we in the official opposition would give our full support without a prolonged debate. Since this legislation has

all been put aside and a new flag for Christmas is all that apparently matters, we in the Conservative opposition have a right to register our protests on behalf of the Canadian people who do want the matter decided by a plebiscite, the only fair way. Instead of the promised legislation the Prime Minister introduced the flag resolution and I ask, why? At one time the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) took part in the flag debate. I wish to refer hon. members to page 6959 of Hansard, where he expressed concern about the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party. Let me assure the hon. minister that we on this side of the house have every confidence in the leadership of Right Hon. John Diefenbaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Richard Elmer Forbes: But, as one who is an ardent believer in the two party system, I personally am deeply concerned about the leadership of the Liberal party at this time. When I think of the able leaders of that once great Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mackenzie King and that great statesman whom all Canadians loved, Mr. St. Laurent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for the last few minutes and I would think that the remarks he has been making until now will lead him eventually to the consideration of the amendment before the house at the present time. I would entreat the hon. member to keep that in mind and get to the core of his subject as quickly as possible.


Richard Elmer Forbes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just coming to that, but I was prefacing my main argument with a few incidentals. I made reference to the great leaders of the Liberal party in the past and I have just one or two more sentences on that subject. The opinions of these great leaders of the Liberal party in the past on the subject of a flag have been placed on the record many times, and their contribution to the history and development of our country. I fear for the future of the Liberal party under the present leadership, if the flag resolution is any indication of his ability as a leader. I am at a loss to understand why a man with a reputation as a great diplomat would introduce such a divisive and controversial issue.
Mr. Speaker, the number of letters and telegrams that I have been receiving from my constituency indicates that the majority want the red ensign retained as Canada's flag.
Canadian Flag
I need not mention the various organizations such as the Canadian Legion, the I.O.D.E. and the L.O.L. who are requesting my support for the red ensign. Mr. Speaker, the maple tree is a thing of beauty, but I am sorry that I cannot say the same thing about the proposed maple leaf flag. As one man said to me recently, it is more of a banner than a flag. Although he did not indicate his politics to me in any way, I feel he may have been a Liberal. In any case I was happy to have him in my office. He is a retired air force chap and said he felt the present Liberal minority government has no right to impose its will on a whole people, as it is doing with the flag, because it is a minority government. I say again, if the government is determined to have a new flag this should only be decided upon by a majority of all the people voting upon it in a referendum or at another election.
The flag which the committee has asked us to accept, Mr. Speaker, has no tradition behind it, except perhaps the colours red and white which are taken from the red ensign. At the risk of being repetitious I am just adding my voice to the others raised in protest throughout Canada and here in this House of Commons against this red and white maple leaf flag replacing the Canadian red ensign which has flown so proudly in Canada and abroad all these years, and has been honoured by all. Immigrants coming to Canada have been swearing allegiance to this Canadian red ensign of ours. To me the red ensign is more than a bit of bunting; it stands for and exemplifies the hopes and aspirations of many generations of every ethnic group who have sought, and found, security and happiness beneath its folds.
I am sure no one wants to think that next year or the year after, or indeed even in 50 or 100 years from now, there should be any necessity for changing our flag. This is why we must decide right now. This matter has already caused so much disunity in this country, and this could easily happen again if at some future time any group was successful in putting enough political pressure on another weak and vacillating government. We in the Conservative party believe that this flag question has been handled in the worst possible way and we feel that the only way the people in our nation will be satisfied with any settlement of the question is to have a plebiscite. We should remember that we are settling this matter for all time

Canadian Flag
and we should not hesitate to take all the time necessary to do it right.
Many people have spoken of symbols and what the symbols on the flag are supposed to represent. It is the emotions and memories the flag evokes which make this such a serious matter to so many people. There is no doubt that many people in this country believe that a flag symbolizes not only the greatness of this nation, but certain facts about Canada and its history that we are proud of and that we hope will remain a permanent part of our future. To these people the removal of known symbols from our flag is a declaration of intention to destroy that part of our Canadian way of life.
Mr. Speaker, the controversy over the flag really boils down to one simple question: Do we have on our national flag any symbols of our history and traditions, or do we not? This is the one question on which we think there should be a national referendum. Some people may be opposed to a referendum or plebiscite because they feel there are too many practical difficulties in the way of permitting a decisive expression of opinion on the flag design. To my mind this is not necessary at all. The question need simply be asked: Should our flag have symbols and traditions? A simple "yes" or "no" is all that would be required, and I suggest that the work of the flag committee would then become relatively simple. I believe that an overwhelming majority of Canadians are in favour of retaining some symbols on our flag and I also believe they have a right to stand up and be counted on this important question.
I believe there is a great deal of misunderstanding in this country about the meaning of symbols. I am aware that many people believe that the presence of the union jack on our flag symbolizes some sort of subservience to Great Britain. I am aware that this feeling is strongly held in the province of Quebec and even to some extent in other parts of the country. We in this house know there is no question of subservience, and therefore that feeling is just plain nonsense. I am surprised that some members of this house continue to foster such notions and use such arguments. To me this is like the argument that there should be no statues in churches because some people say this suggests idolatry. Just because some people use this silly argument it has never stopped churches from having statues, because they know very well they are not their idols.
In exactly the same way I want to see the union jack kept on our flag as a proud declara-

tion and reminder of our democracy, passing on the British heritage of the parliamentary system and type of justice. This symbol is very precious and meaningful to most Canadians. No one can say that it mars the beauty of the flag design and the only argument for its removal is the silly one that some people foster a false interpretation of what it stands for.
The argument I might make to my French Canadian colleagues to enlist their support for this symbol is to remind them that it is not just the people of Quebec who are anxious that their right to their religion and language should be maintained. Western Canadians are every bit as devoted to the preservation of French Canadian rights as they are to their own. When there is misunderstanding of the French devotion to their language, responsible people in western Canada do not add strength to superstitions or ill-informed and harmful remarks. The one thing that is uppermost in the minds of responsible Canadians is that the right of individuals must be protected. In our democracy we take pride in the fact that Canadians have a right to be different. We conform to the rule of law but we do not ask the conformity of our neighbour to our particular brand of behaviour. The French Canadian's right to speak his language and retain his customs is cherished by the western Canadian and understood by him, just as he cherishes his own right to have his own language and customs. Once one right is taken away, all rights might soon slip away.
Western Canadians wish to have a fleur-de-lis on the national flag. It is a symbol and a reminder that Canada does have a history that we are proud of and that both races have made great history in building up this great Canada of ours. To me the decision of the flag committee would be acceptable if they had taken a flag with these two symbols on it. The symbols are small while the maple leaf is large, appropriate I would say to the philosophy that while we are proud of our history and traditions and intend to build on them, Canada's greatness lies ahead of us and the large maple leaf symbolizes the forward look of optimism of all our people. The two symbols are not just a reminder of our past; their position on the flag is also an indication of the future. They are placed wide apart, a symbol of their determination that both languages have a place and each culture is necessary and part of our strength. This could show the determination that each will survive and be respected and cherished as a separate entity in a united country.

I suppose that every symbol can be misunderstood. People can say the wrong things about anything. The choice of responsible people is to take the path of courage, and one does not deviate from the right because the weak or the ill-informed may criticize. It is my belief that our flag needs these symbols as a reminder to every citizen, from whatever part of the country he comes, that his way of life is cherished and respected by other Canadians who have a different culture and who ask of him only that he gives the same respect to their way of life.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let the Canadian people vote on the flag in another election or by a referendum as suggested in the amendment by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith). Why all the rush about a new flag before Christmas? Is this the only way the Prime Minister could bring about an election, or was this what he had in mind when he suddenly introduced the flag resolution, which had not been included in the speech from the throne last February?
The Prime Minister has been known to change his mind. I suggest that if he would change his mind on this issue, it would be to the advantage of his party and himself to submit this matter to the electors of Canada and they could make the decision at the next federal election. I hope that the Prime Minister will reconsider and withdraw his motion even at this late date, and submit the issue to the electors.


Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesler-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for some time to have an opportunity to put forward a few views on this important question and on this amendment to refer the matter back to a committee in order that the people of Canada might have the chance to express their opinion on the subject. I have waited because there are so many members in this house who have not yet risen to speak in this debate, and I would think that this question should be as important to them as it is to me. I have already expressed myself briefly previously, and I intend to be brief again today. I still contend that the people of Canada should have the opportunity of expressing their opinion on this question, and I put forward these reasons for feeling in this way.
During this debate an inference has been drawn by some government members, the very few who have spoken, that a new flag was an election promise. If it was, it was a very indefinite one and must certainly have been regional, because there was no mention made of a flag in the last election campaign 20220-694
Canadian Flag
in which I participated. I would be glad to oppose anybody from my area who would come forward and say that it was his intention to vote in favour of destroying our present flag.
In my opinion, the action which is being taken is not a creative move at all. It is simply a move to destroy what we have. It is simply a move to remove a symbol, of which many people of this country are very proud, from our national flag. This is proven by the willingness of the government to accept almost anything, provided it has no connection with the red ensign. I am referring to the union jack part of the red ensign when I say that. Hon. members opposite should- and I challenge them to do so-stand up and say why they do not like the union jack portion of our present flag and why it should not be represented on a new flag. I have yet to meet anybody who could put up an argument as to why it should be obliterated from a new flag.
Among the loyal Canadians in this country are the veterans who stood and fought for our country, and they have been most adamant that our national symbols should be preserved. A symbol means, or should mean, something to a person. If it were not for symbols-and symbols include literature or anything representing the past-our coming generation would learn nothing of the past. Under the symbols we have had thus far this nation has progressed. We may not have reached the highest goals over the years, but we have stood for the principles which underlie the British and French traditions handed down to us. Why then, without permission from the people, has parliament the right to vote on this question and throw away these things which mean so much to so many people?
How many people in this country have participated in several wars in order to defend the principles to which I have referred, the basic principle of which is freedom? When I speak of those who participated in the wars I am referring not only to those who actually took up the sword and fought on the battlefields, but also to the vast number of people who supported our soldiers and made it possible for them to be effective and to put forth everything they had, many of them giving their lives. Surely the opinions of these people, our veterans should have some direct bearing in this regard; and as far as I am aware they are adamant that we should not lose our present flag which bears the symbols for which they have stood over

Canadian Flag
the years. It we as a group remove these symbols, I am afraid we will only leave bitterness, dissension and possibly division among our people which will last for many years.
Some people say we should forget the past and look only to the future. I would say that anyone who makes such a statement is only deluding himself. History is a recording of the past, and history is a part, and an important part, of any person, race or nation. Man's personal and intellectual history begins when he is born and ends when he dies. A nation continues to make history, and I hope Canada's future history will be as glorious as it has been in the past.
No doubt there are many things in our past history which we should like to forget, but on the other hand there are also many achievements of which we are proud. If we did not accept and remember the lessons of history we would still be a primitive people. As a matter of fact, our very survival, even militarily, is based on lessons learned from previous struggles. "The past is a fact, the present is fleeting and the future is unknown."
Mr. Speaker, I conclude these brief remarks regarding this question which has been before this house for so long by stating that I regret that we have had so much discussion about the flag issue and that the important business of this house has been put aside. I have no idea how much more discussion there will be on this question, so I urge the government with all my heart to again consider taking this question out of this house, and bring before us some of those things now on the order paper for which the people of this country have been waiting. These matters are important, and should be dealt with as quickly as possible. I am sure the majority of Canadians feel that these things should be done in priority to any discussion about something which is in effect a change in our symbolic past, and which means so much to us that it should be preserved and taught to future generations.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Speaker, I think I am considered as one of the less vocal members of this house, and that I usually try to speak with some common sense. I hope that the people on the other side of this house who interrupted my speech some months ago so consistently will refrain from doing so today.
I speak at this time because I feel obliged to put on record some of the wishes of my constituents. I am obliged also to present some of the views held in my constituency.

At the outset I should state that these views about a design or the necessity for a plebiscite are not universal. There are some differences in the opinions of the people in this country, as there often are in this house, and I think we must put those differing points of view in proper perspective. Because of these facts I support our position in asking for a plebiscite.
On June 24 I received a letter from one of my constituents who said:
I feel that this is not a matter to be settled by a handful of members but that it should be put to the people, and it will be with concern and great interest that your defence of this issue will be observed.
I hope I will not be accused of filibustering or of delay. I hope that I am living up to my responsibilities as a member of this house. After listening to the speeches of other members during this debate I feel that they also are living up to their responsibilities. I do not agree with all of them, and certainly they have not agreed with one another, but I respect their courage in standing up to present their views and to reflect the views of their constituents.
At the same time I regard the members on the other side of the house as not living up to their responsibilities. Perhaps they have been gagged by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), or some curtain of silence has been dropped around them. In honesty I feel that on the question of a plebiscite, or on any other question associated with the flag, the members on the government side of this house have not lived up to their responsibilities by maintaining a silence. Surely their constituents would like to know their views and how they are being represented. These members are not accepting their responsibilities. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Aurora Banner of July 29 under the heading "Liberal M.P.s should take wheel". The article reads as follows:
We have had poor drivers in Ottawa before. We have even had governments with engines missing, and we have had governments with no engines at all. Now we have a government with a poor driver at the wheel. We suggest that it is time for some of his own party members riding in the Liberal backseat-including our own member, Mr. John Addison-to reach over and try to put the old bus back on the road.
It is obvious that many members in this house are not speaking for the people they represent. Therefore the people should be allowed to speak for themselves. I have no argument with members on the other side of this house as to whether they are in favour

of the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag or with the retention of the red ensign, but I do think they should have the courage to get up on their feet and express in no uncertain terms their feelings on this issue. One member of the government party did stand up and voice his opinion. I think he has carried out a service on behalf of his constituents.
I do not believe the members of this house do express a composite view of the people of this country. I wonder whether members on the opposite side of this house are so devoted to the stand taken by the Prime Minister that they do not now have the courage to stand up and express their views.
In asking for this plebiscite I should like to emphasize that we in this party who have taken part in the debate on this amendment have not attempted to delay passage of this resolution or the passage of the business of the house. It has been almost on the insistence of the opposition that the government has passed what little legislation it has passed. I can only laugh when I hear some hon. members from the government side, while speaking in other parts of the country, talk about the obstruction the Conservative party has perpetrated on parliament, while in the same breath they list all the legislative items that have been passed during this session. Those members cannot have it both ways; we are either obstructing or you are not doing your jobs as legislators, I think you are misleading the public in this regard.
As far as a plebiscite is concerned, our position has not changed. We have always advocated a plebiscite on this matter. I should like to refer to a speech made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) on July 22, over the national television network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in which he stated:
We have endeavoured to stop this headstrong and stubborn rush of the government. We want the people of Canada to have a chance to have a say in the matter and suggested that a plebiscite be granted to the Canadian people in order that they could determine their wishes. Such a plebiscite could take place at the next general election. Among the questions to be asked might be such as: Are you in favour of the red ensign? Are you in favour of the red ensign with changes made thereon to show both heritages? Are you in favour of the three maple leaves joined together? Are you in favour of the one maple leaf?
Our position has been consistent in calling for a plebiscite right from the beginning of the flag debate, and we are still being consistent in calling for one now. I spoke earlier in the debate and at that time said that I 20220-6944
Canadian Flag
favoured this matter being taken out of the House of Commons by referring it to a committee of the house. If the government wanted this question removed from the house, why did they not refer the matter to a committee originally? They wasted the taxpayers' money by their obstinacy. They wasted the time of the house by keeping the debate going in this chamber when the matter should have been referred to a committee in the beginning. Finally they did agree to that suggestion and I said at that time that, should the committee report indicate disagreement, and it has, then we should have a national referendum. I am of the same view today. My view has not changed in this regard. If members will refer to my speech in August they will see that I said exactly the same thing. If they did not listen to it the first time I would certainly recommend that they listen this time. I suggested that this committee, although it might not be unanimous, could do a great service for this country.


Osias.-J. Godin: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph Slogan: I will permit it at the end of my remarks. I have only 40 minutes and I have a two hour speech prepared. I will try to cut it a little shorter to leave the hon. member a couple of minutes in which to ask me a question. I suggested at that time that this committee would render a great service to the country by bringing in a report which would narrow down the designs exactly in the manner in which it has reported, but because of the fact that a small group of people could not agree I could not see that in this larger house we could have any greater agreement. So my suggestion was that we should take the recommendation-


Osias.-J. Godin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting that the committee could not agree on a design. I would appreciate it if he would refer to the 14 to nothing vote for the design now before the house.


Joseph Slogan: Obviously the hon. member, as he did in my last speech, is trying to trap me and get me off the rails, but I will answer that question.


Osias.-J. Godin: Why did you say the committee did not agree?


Joseph Slogan: Obviously the hon. member did not understand the vote in the committee. The vote of the committee was not to

Canadian Flag
adopt that design but to adopt that design in preference to two other designs.


Osias.-J. Godin: As the best design.


Joseph Slogan: Therefore he is under a very grave misapprehension if he thinks the committee was unanimous. The hon. member says that the vote of 14 to nothing was a unanimous vote by that committee approving that design as the flag of Canada, but that is not so. It was a preferential vote in which the members of the committee were expressing their preference with regard to three designs. That was the basis of the unanimous vote which the hon. member is now trying to use to mislead the people of Canada.
In further answer to the hon. member may I say I have here one of his fine campaign advertisements and I see nothing here about a Canadian flag. The hon. member says that the solution of the eastern farmers' number one problem, the cost-price squeeze-


Osias.-J. Godin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member raising a point of order or a question of privilege?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Make sure it is privilege.


Osias.-J. Godin: On a question of privilege, the hon. member has just read from an advertisement pertaining to my campaign in the last election. He said there was nothing in my platform about a distinctive Canadian flag. I request that the hon. member read the relevant paragraph in my publicity, which is in both English and French and which he has in his hands, in which I advocated a distinctive Canadian flag as part of my program.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's point is very well taken. In fact, he got me so off guard that I never did get the last sentence. At the bottom of his list of priorities that he was suggesting-he did not put it in the top line but in the bottom line-he did refer to a distinctive Canadian flag. He did not say one without the union jack. In any event, I think we are getting away from the point. I should like to debate this matter if Mr. Speaker would permit me, but I am sure he would rule I should not. If the hon. member had remained quiet I could have continued with my speech with the result that the time of the house would not have been wasted and we could have proceeded a little farther with the debate.
To come back to the question of a plebiscite, Mr. Speaker, as has been suggested in many

newspaper articles I think that the debate in the House of Commons has often laid the house open to ridicule. It has resulted not only in ridicule in Canada, in fact, but Canada is being held up to ridicule abroad. For this reason I think this question should be removed from the house by the government approving our amendment and holding a national plebiscite at the next general election.
In support of this view may I say I had the privilege recently of being a member of the NATO delegation which visited Germany and France. We visited our air division and army brigade at Soest and Zweibrucken and it was interesting to note the reactions of our servicemen to what is going on in the House of Commons regarding the flag. Those of us who made that trip recall meeting Mr. Bernard Kaplan at a reception held by our NATO ambassador in Paris, and I should like to refer to an editorial in the Edmonton Journal of June 26 last in which Mr. Bernard Kaplan, Paris correspondent for the North American newspaper alliance, is quoted as referring to the flag question in this way:
He says the affair is regarded by western Europeans as "a kind of political curiosity in the middle of the twentieth century."
The editorial quotes the Paris newspaper, Liberation, as saying:
It is a fortunate nation that is able to quarrel over such an issue.
The editorial is entitled "Laugh or Cry?" This shows how the ridiculous stubbornness of the Prime Minister is regarded. He has forced the house to debate an issue that would be far better removed from the house. I might also refer to another newspaper dispatch from Washington in which there is the following:
But Americans continue to view our predicament with a certain amount of inner amusement. "Canada is considering a maple leaf flag design." reports the Washington Daily News. "Now how about the 'Maple Leaf Rag' as a national anthem?"
This is the type of reaction abroad and I think it certainly adds nothing to the prestige of Canada that our neighbours in Europe and the United States are looking at us in this light. If we were to remove this question from the house and leave it until the next general election when tempers and emotions would have cooled down, the people of Canada could then be asked to determine the matter by a plebiscite, which is the proper way to bring this question to a logical conclusion.

As I have said previously, as one who is neither Anglo-Saxon nor French, as a Canadian it grieves me to see how this flag issue has divided the country. If we are going to adopt a distinctive national flag the time to do it is when the country is united. Certainly the divisive tactics employed by the government in this issue cannot hope to unite the country.
First of all we had the commission on bi-culturalism which did a great deal to divide and crystallize the positions of the two founding races. Now we have the flag debate which is doing the same thing. The government should accept a referendum, get the matter out of the House of Commons and proceed with the legislation which it says it wants to present.


Gilles Grégoire: Then let us vote.


Joseph Slogan: We had a vote.


Gilles Grégoire: When?


Joseph Slogan: We had one this afternoon.


Gilles Grégoire: That wasn't a vote on the flag.


Joseph Slogan: Speaking from behind the curtains they are very vociferous, but when challenged they run away with their tails between their legs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should not be interrupted, particularly by someone who is not speaking from his seat in the house. I would ask hon. members to keep that in mind and allow the hon. member to continue without being interrupted.


Joseph Slogan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your graciousness in rising to reprimand the hon. member-


Gilles Grégoire: I deserved it.


Joseph Slogan: -who is speaking from behind the curtain and who admits he deserved it. I think many hon. members privately would prefer a plebiscite. The Ottawa Citizen of May 13 had an article headed "Put flag issue to voters."
Barry Mather (NDP-New Westminster) has called for a national plebiscite on this question.
If it could not achieve unanimity I think the best the committee should have done was to have narrowed the choice down to two designs. I think both sides were willing to accept a certain degree of compromise. On one side were the proponents of the three maple leaf flag, and on the other the proponents of the red ensign. It is perfectly obvious, because of the amount of emotion
Canadian Flag
engendered in this debate, that neither of these designs would have been acceptable to the other group. For that reason my original suggestion was that the committee would do a great job by narrowing the choice to two designs, one of which would be acceptable to the proponents of the red ensign, with its main ingredient being the retention of the union jack and the fleur-de-lis, and the other the single maple leaf design.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask the hon. member a question? If he is suggesting that a plebiscite be restricted to two designs would it not make sense that the two designs be those which received the most votes in the committee, namely the three maple leaf flag and the one maple leaf flag?


Joseph Slogan: You want to have your cake and eat it too. I said I thought that in the spirit of compromise there should have been two designs, one that would satisfy the opposition to the three maple leaf design and the other which would satisfy the opposition to the red ensign. I would have been much happier had the committee recommended two designs instead of one. Both designs could then be put on a ballot in a plebiscite at the next general election.
There is a large section of people in the country which has strong emotional ties to the union jack. I do not believe the wishes of these people should have been overridden. I believe they should be taken into consideration in a plebiscite.
Back on July 21 the Montreal Star printed a small article headed, "Red Ensign Advocated by 149,465." I quote from that article, which said that the office of the Secretary of State had received 149,465 signatures on letters and petitions since July 1945 favouring the retention of the red ensign as Canada's national flag. This shows there is some sentiment in the country.
What about some of the polls that were conducted? If we are talking about a plebiscite perhaps we may conjecture a little on the outcome of it. There was the Gruneau survey which showed that in nine provinces the red ensign was leading and that in the province of Quebec the three maple leaf flag was leading, but because of the preponderance of opinion in Quebec, on a national basis there were more votes for the new design than for the red ensign.
In view of this, what has the government to fear from a plebiscite? If these polls are accurate to any degree-and I am not saying

Canadian Flag
they are-surely a plebiscite would solve the question for the government.
A large number of regional polls were conducted showing that the red ensign led the new flag by varying majorities. There was one held in Winnipeg and one in Newfoundland. The one in Winnipeg showed that 41 per cent liked the ensign as compared with 32 per cent for the three maple leaves. I could quote these articles at length. Norman Campbell in the Ottawa Citizen went to the trouble of dividing the letters received by the Prime Minister into five categories, one category calling for a referendum on the flag issue. The Ottawa Journal reported a 350 foot petition presented to the Prime Minister, advocating the ensign, sent from communities in Toronto and southern Ontario.
It is not just the Conservative party which is calling for a referendum. The Toronto Telegram of August 22 printed an editorial saying the voice of the people could be heard on this issue only through a national plebiscite. It said this was a matter which touched the hearts, emotions and loyalties of virtually all Canadians, and a parliamentary vote which would destroy the country's flag would foster strong feelings for years to come.
If that is not enough proof let us look back to 1961 when the Prime Minister was leader of the opposition. He was being interviewed on the radio, I believe. I am reading an excerpt from the Amherst Daily News of December 29, 1961. He was asked the question: "How would you poll the people on this?" The right hon. gentleman, who was then leader of the opposition, replied:
We would poll the people when they have a general election and if they don't like the idea of a distinctive Canadian flag which cannot be mistaken for that of any other country they will let us know in no uncertain terms.
What has happened to the opinion the right hon. gentleman held in 1961? I realize hon. members opposite are in a precarious situation. They cannot say anything because if they back the Prime Minister today he may change his mind tomorrow and perhaps they do not all want to be as inconsistent as he has been.
Then there was another question addressed to the Prime Minister. He was asked whether he thought the country needed this symbol to hold us together. And the right hon. gentleman-he was then the leader of the opposition-replied:
Yes, I think it would be a good idea to have a flag, a distinctive Canadian flag, in the interest of national unity.

He went on to say:
We should try to solve this problem in a manner which would create the minimum of division and the maximum of unity.
We agree with all those sentiments and ideas put forward by the right hon. gentleman at that time and I, for one, can say I had a much greater regard for the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition than I have had for him since I have seen the way he holds the reins of government today.
Indeed, one reason for the desirability of holding a plebiscite on this issue is the inconsistency shown by the Prime Minister. The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) indicated in the course of one of his speeches that the first flag chosen was the personal design of the Prime Minister and that it had not been placed before the caucus of Liberal members. The Prime Minister also indicated when this matter arose that parliament either had to choose this design or face a general election. I call that political blackmail. As a result of the views subsequently expressed on behalf of this party the Prime Minister backed away from that suggestion. There might have been other reasons. In support of this contention I will quote a headline from the Toronto Globe and Mail of June 18. It refers to the Prime Minister as regarding both flag votes as a confidence test. If we go on to July 20 we see that in the Toronto Telegram there is another headline: "Accept My Flag or Else, Warns a Defiant Pearson". The article says:
Mr. Pearson is laying down the law with fire and fury after a breakdown of all-party talks on a firm agenda for the next month.
Well, the fire and the fury have turned into smoke which has camouflaged the real intention of the Liberal government. A month later we read the following headline in the Montreal Gazette: "Free Flag Vote-Pearson Calls Off the Whips". What was the reason for this? Let us consider another headline which appeared in the Chronicle-Telegraph on August 12-"Election on Flag Could Kill Liberals". So perhaps there are various political reasons why the Prime Minister has been vacillating and changing his mind. But those reasons are not based on principles; they are not based on the interest of national unity. They are based directly on the political advantages the right hon. gentleman had hoped to gain by being the one who would bring in a distinctive national flag. He was leader of the opposition when the former prime minister, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) brought in the bill

of rights. That is a great monument to my hon. friend. But there is no monument to the right hon. gentleman, the present Prime Minister, and there is not likely to be one if we can judge from the performance of the party opposite.
At the beginning of my remarks I spoke about unity. I referred to the position taken then by the right hon. gentleman when he said that if elected prime minister he would ask the people of Canada to express their views on this matter and leave it up to them.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is all we are asking.


Joseph Slogan: Even if this issue were completely removed from the House of Commons I do not think it would be any great loss to the country. In fact, he Devoir on August 22 had something to say in this regard. I quote from a translation:
Let us not deplore the possible death of the Pearson project. The adoption of this project is not a matter of life or death for this country.
Let us rather deplore the inconsistencies of a chief of government who in May last drew premature praise from us though events now force us to realize that in a matter of principle he is somewhat lost in a fog.
I wish the Prime Minister were in his place. He is very seldom there. I do not think he really likes the House of Commons.


Gilles Grégoire: What about you?


Joseph Slogan: You are not in your seat, either.


Gilles Grégoire: I am here, though.


Joseph Slogan: Not all there.


Harold Edward Winch: The Prime Minister has work to do, though.


Joseph Slogan: I have said it is difficult to achieve a unifying symbol in a country which itself is not unified. I claim that the country today is not united. It does not take a magnifying glass to see that. This confederation of ours seems to be bursting at every seam. The Prime Minister, in bringing forward this issue, has sown the seeds of discord across this country.


Gilles Grégoire: That has been said at least 600 times before.


Joseph Slogan: I deplore the fact that this issue has become an issue between the French speaking and the Anglo-Saxon Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Slogan: It is obvious and I could prove my contention if some hon. members would contain themselves.
Canadian Flag


Eric Alfred Winkler: Who is saying "no"? Ask yourselves that question.


Yvon Dupuis: That issue divided your party, not Canada.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I simply asked: who is saying
"no"?


An hon. Member:: It is dividing the Liberal party.


Yvon Dupuis: Your party is divided, not Canada.


Joseph Slogan: If the federal members from Quebec who believe in democracy would allow me to speak I will finish what I have to say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) has always demonstrated that he has more brains in his seat than on his feet, and I ask him to contain himself.


Gilles Grégoire: Now you are right. Now I
agree with you.


Joseph Slogan: Canada is made up of several groups of people-the Anglo-Saxons, the French and those of the third element. One of the reasons I am in favour of a referendum is that I think the Anglo-Saxon and the French fact has been played up out of all proportion. In my riding the Slavic and the German people are twice as numerous as are the Anglo-Saxons and the French. In this debate I am trying to portray some of their views. We have no antipathy toward either of those other groups. In fact we consider ourselves good Canadians and we consider our French neighbours and our Anglo-Saxon neighbours to be good Canadians, too. I grew up in a community where we began the morning in school by singing "O Canada" and ended it by singing "God Save the Queen".
We had no antipathy to either of those anthems. For a while we had the union jack flying over us; then we had the red ensign. We had as much devotion for one as for the other. I hope that as good Canadians, if any other design is voted for, we would show the same devotion to it. But, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the views of all Canadians could be presented in this house without their being called down, because I as a gentleman object to that type of behaviour in this house.


Gilles Grégoire: Be serious. Ready for the question.

Canadian Flag


Joseph Slogan: It is quite true that the Liberal party has modified its stand on this question a number of times and-


Gilles Grégoire: You said that two minutes ago.


Bert Raymond Leboe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think this has gone on long enough and it is not contributing anything to the debate. This hon. member, who is now sitting at the back here, is piping away and piping away, and I am getting fed up with it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce what has just been said. Special privileges in this house are being allowed the member for Lapointe and I think it is high time standing order 12(1) was applied in order that we may have the maintenance of order and decorum in this house. The member for Lapointe is the worst offender and yet he has not been called to order by the Speaker. He should be named and put out of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Starr:: Nobody would miss him.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Actually, I believe that the worst offenders against the rules of the house are the Conservatives who rehash continuously the same things, and we cannot help but bring it to their attention. They have reached the point of stupidity, and we show them they are being ridiculous. They should be expelled from the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The point raised by hon. members is well taken, but I believe I should bring to the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that the hon. member who interrupted was brought to order on a number of occasions in the course of the speech now being made by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Slogan).


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, not once.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the cooperation of the hon. member for Lapointe in allowing the hon. member who has the floor to continue and conclude his speech without interruption.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Speaker; but he does not have to repeat himself.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Speaker, if anybody has repeated himself for the umpteenth time in this house, it is the hon. member.


Michael Starr: And he has said nothing.


Joseph Slogan: I would hope he would bear the same good will toward me as a member of a minority group from the prairies as I bear toward him as a member of French Canadian origin from Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on that point I would like to take-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Springfield has the floor. If the hon. member for Lapointe wants to raise a question of privilege or a point of order he will have to be recognized by the Chair; but I would suggest it might be more appropriate to extend to the hon. member the courtesy of concluding his remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege, then, I would like to say to the hon. member for Springfield that I have nothing personal against him, that I admire him very much; but I cannot approve of the way that whole group is acting.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Springfield.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks very shortly because I think my time is just about up. As I said at the very beginning, I am not here to fan any fires of racial hatred or anything else. I am speaking as a Canadian who loves his country, wants to see his country united, wants to see his country prosper in the world, and wants to see Canadians able to hold their heads high when they talk about their country. I believe I am expressing some of the views which should be taken to heart by all members of parliament. I think that in a spirit of good will we can thrash this question out, but it is perfectly obvious that this House of Commons cannot reach a decision on this matter without creating a great deal more disunity, without creating a great deal more animosity and bitterness and without opening many more wounds in the flesh of this country. I do not want to see this happen. I think we should have unity. I believe we as a parliament have failed our country by not being more unanimous in our views on this subject; but those views, though they are not unanimous, are strongly and loyally held in the interests of Canada. For this



S, 1964

[Stage Direction]
reason I believe this question should be referred to Canadians themselves who should have the opportunity of reaching a final decision on the matter.
It would be easy for me, perhaps, to cast more ridicule, to fan more fires, and perhaps this would win me a few votes from one side or the other; but it would really do very little toward solving the problem before us. After all, a man must indeed be very small if he would sell his convictions for a few votes which might re-elect him to a House of Commons that is bitter and rudderless. To serve in such a house would indeed be a very empty prize. I do not believe we should allow that type of disunity to be the result of the question before us, and because of this I sincerely recommend to the Prime Minister and the house that they support our call for a national plebiscite.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. Millar).


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. C. E. Millar (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate for the second time I cannot help making a comment regarding our friends in the other parties who are continually saying, "Question, question". I cannot help feeling that this indicates the type of consideration we would get from those people if by any unfortunate chance they ever formed the government of this country. I think the fact that I have only spoken in this house on only two occasions indicates that I have been somewhat reluctant to express my views with regard to the flag issue.
I am well aware that this parliament is subject to considerable criticism because of the extended debate on the question of a new flag for this country. However, whenever I have an opportunity to speak to these same critics I generally try and pin them down by asking this question, "Do you accept the present design for a new flag for the Dominion of Canada as proposed by the Prime Minister of this country?" The immediate answer, of course, is "No". It is true that many of them believe we should have a new flag, but those who accept the present proposed design are very few. I then go on to indicate to these same people that in so far as the official opposition in this house are concerned, we are faced with one alternative and one alternative only. We are in the position where we either accept this flag or continue to debate it. I think I can safely 20220-695
Canadian Flag
speak for this party when I say that we choose to continue the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There are conversations across the aisle, passing between hon. members. I took the liberty yesterday to bring this to the attention of the house and I do so again. It is rather unbecoming and certainly offends the dignity of the house. I would ask hon. members to desist from this practice.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is possible that these hon. members cannot hear me. The present Conservative amendment suggests that the people of Canada are entitled to the opportunity of indicating their feelings regarding a new flag for this country. I do not think this is unreasonable. I do not think it is undemocratic. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the present government is in a very delicate position; I repeat, a very delicate position.


Auguste Choquette: Your party is in a disastrous position.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Should the privilege of asking questions be restored this house, that position would be made quite apparent and some of our friends across the way who are now laughing might possibly consider the matter not quite so humorous. This government does not command the support of the majority of the voters of Canada. It is a minority government and I question its right to attempt to force upon the people of Canada, and the correctness of its attempting to force upon the people of Canada, a flag design which is not acceptable.
The present Prime Minister during the last election campaign-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I should like to call your attention especially to subsection 2 of standing order 34 which reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker or the chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists In irrelevance, or repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech-
Mr. Speaker, do you not feel that the remarks made the hon. member have been repeated over and over again?
In fact, those statements have been constantly repeated in the house and I would ask you, under standing order 34 (2) to direct the hon. member to discontinue his speech because he is constantly repeating himself.

Canadian Flag


David Réal Caouette: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that, with his knowledge, the hon. member for Lapointe could translate without too much trouble from French to Greek, so that Conservative members would understand precisely what he is doing at present.


Mr, Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Middlesex East.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to give a ruling on this matter.
Do you not feel that what the hon. member is repeating has already been said?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has listened to the point of order of the hon. member for Lapointe.
The remarks that the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. Millar) is making now seem pertinent to me. Besides, I have noted that his speech, up to this stage, had the character of an introduction, and I presume that in due time he will come to the amendment now before us.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order and your ruling-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no appeal from the ruling, no comments to be made.


David Réal Caouette: No, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I can make comments, to say that there is no need to make repetitions at this stage.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North South-


An hon. Member:: Winnipeg South Centre.


David Réal Caouette: -or South Centre rises over and over again to ask you to call to order hon. members who repeat what other members have said, I think that it is time now for you to decide whether the hon. member who has the floor is in order or not. Personally, I feel that he is not, because he repeats what others have already said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has already made its decision to the effect that it is satisfied, for the time being at least, that the hon. member who has the floor is in order.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If there is any member in this house who, to the disgust of us all, repeats himself more than anyone it is the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member who has the floor will want to co-operate with the Chair and try to limit his remarks to the subject matter of the debate.


Campbell Ewing Millar: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I think I had just stated-and I will repeat it for the benefit of the hon. member for Lapointe-that the present Conservative amendment proposes that the people of Canada shall have the opportunity of indicating in a democratic way whether or not they want a new flag for Canada. If that is not pertinent to the present amendment then I am prepared to apologize to the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in paragraph 2 of standing order 34 it is also indicated that a member may not repeat things already said. That was the basis for my point of order and what the hon. member just said has been repeated at least 200 times in this house.
Indeed, you are aware of it yourself because listening to it seems to be boring you.
Therefore, you should endeavour to see to it that the same thing is not repeated too often. Indeed, those things were not repeated two, three, five or six times, but at least 200 times to date, and it is on that point that I am asking you to call the hon. member to order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has made a ruling on that.
I think that the hon. member for Lapointe is giving a somewhat too strict interpretation of the standing order he is referring to. In fact, during a debate I think it is obvious that hon. members making contributions must necessarily repeat to a certain extent arguments put forward by other hon. members taking part in the same debate.
The hon. member who has the floor now is referring to the motion itself and it seems to me that he cannot be accused of repetition, and it is on that point that the hon. member for Lapointe based his point of order.
The Chair's ruling is that the hon. member for Middlesex East is entitled to repetition and that he should be allowed to proceed with his remarks.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again on a point of order.
Even though, according to your ruling, the hon. member has the right to repeat himself, I must point out that we are considering an amendment concerning the flag issue, namely whether a plebiscite should or should not be held.

Well, the hon. member does not speak to the point at all. He has been speaking of everything except the plebiscite. Now, this afternoon-


Eric Alfred Winkler: There are all kinds of other things involved.


David Réal Caouette: -the Conservative deputy leader suggested that closure be applied and that the vote be taken immediately-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not feel there is any point of order in the remarks just made by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).
I followed as closely as possible the remarks of the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. Millar). They seem entirely relevant to the amendment now before the house and I ask the hon. member for Villeneuve to co-operate in allowing the hon. member who has the floor to proceed with his speech.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not object to the hon. member for Middlesex East-


Yvon Dupuis: Est-milieu.


David Réal Caouette: -being heard. I simply abide by the standing order which requires-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve is only repeating the argument he put forward a moment ago.
The Chair is perfectly aware of the standing order the hon. member is referring to and will see to it that it is respected should it feel the hon. member for Middlesex East is violating it.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, again on a point of order. The hon. member does not keep at all-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
The hon. member for Villeneuve is raising for the third time the same point of order on which the Chair gave a ruling.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to appeal your ruling, I just want to say that the hon. member who has the floor must respect the rules of the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You too.


David Réal Caouette: I hear the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) tell me that I too-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member who has the floor must, of course, follow the rules of the house, and the hon. member for Villeneuve must do so also.
Canadian Flag
Since there was a ruling on that point, I shall ask the latter to abide by it so that the hon. member who has the floor may proceed with his remarks.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There seems to be some difference of opinion as to whom I must satisfy in this house-you, Your Honour, or the self-appointed speaker we have in the Creditiste party. I have no difficulty in making a decision in this regard.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This is not a point of order, but a question of privilege.
Is the hon. member entitled to mention my interventions concerning the nature of his remarks, the speech he is delivering, which is entirely irrelevant to the matter we are discussing at this moment, that is the amendment to decide whether or not we should hold a plebiscite in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to give a ruling on this point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Middlesex East.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I was about to suggest that the present Prime Minister came to the city of London during the election campaign and spoke to some 5,000 people, all good Canadians, though not my supporters, yet he made no mention of a new flag for Canada at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Campbell Ewing Millar: That is true.


David Réal Caouette: Talk about the plebiscite. Order.


Campbell Ewing Millar: What I have said is the fact.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Perhaps I should resign. If the hon. member will keep quiet I will repeat what I have said.


David Réal Caouette: Oh, no, do not repeat.


Campbell Ewing Millar: The present Conservative
amendment proposes that the people of Canada shall have the opportunity of indicating in a democratic way whether or not they want a new flag for Canada. Does that satisfy the hon. member?


An hon. Member:: You read very well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
10990	HOUSE OF
Canadian Flag


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Villeneuve raising a point of order?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, I am raising a point of order.
What has this vote to do with the amendment we are now discussing, namely: Are we in favour of a plebiscite or not?
The hon. member should confine his remarks to that question.
The flag issue, the design of the flag are irrelevant.
The fact that we should have a distinctive national flag is completely irrelevant to the Conservative amendment which calls for the holding of a plebiscite.
Let the hon. member tell us why he is in favour of a plebiscite or against it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. member but it does not satisfy the Chair. The hon. member at this moment is obviously inviting trouble, and I would ask him to co-operate with the Chair, because the rules of this house apply also to him. Will he please limit his remarks to the subject we have before us.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Am I allowed to indicate that I appreciate the extension of my time provided by the interjections of hon. members.
Last Monday in the city of London I had the opportunity of speaking to some 160 school children. It was suggested that I speak on the flag issue. I submit that this subject is relevant. I was hesitant in speaking about this matter in view of the controversial nature of the debate now taking place in this house. However, I attempted to give the history of the flag debate up to this time, including an outline of the method of selection used by the flag committee. At that time I had three photographs of the proposed designs. The suggestion was made that these pupils from grades 6, 7 and 8 be given the opportunity of voting on the various designs. I indicated my agreement with this proposal, but unfortunately I had forgotten to bring a copy of the red ensign, which is presently Canada's flag.


David Réal Caouette: It is not.
[Mr. Deputy Speaker-1


Campbell Ewing Millar: However, that was soon remedied.


An hon. Member:: It is so.


Lucien Plourde: It is not.


Campbell Ewing Millar: I think it is relevant and pertinent that I indicate the results of this vote.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Campbell Ewing Millar: The Pearson pennant, which has been rejected, received 55 votes. The composite design received 18 votes. The single maple leaf design, which is the current proposal, received three votes, and the red ensign received 85 votes.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of order.
I notice that for a quarter of an hour the present speaker has been scratching his back against the desk behind him; he falters, the words fail him, he says nothing, he does not know what to say. In that case, he should sit down and let us vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.


Francis Andrew Brewin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to hon. members that even if the member for Middlesex East is being slightly repetitive and irrelevant this is not new, so we might as well be patient and listen to what he has to say without further interruptions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Villeneuve has suggested that the remarks of the hon. member who has the floor are not relevant. It is the opinion of the Chair that the argument he advanced is, to a considerable extent, irrelevant to the matter of the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems to me that
the argument he has advanced would indicate that he is proceeding by induction in the same way the hon. member for Lapointe did yesterday.


Campbell Ewing Millar: I thank you again, Mr. Speaker. In self-defence I should like to say to the member who has just suggested I do not know what I am talking about, that if he will give me an opportunity to do so, I will show him that I do know what has been happening.

I am speaking about the plebiscite, Mr. Speaker, and that seems to be a pertinent subject. I had just finished indicating the results of a plebiscite held in a classroom in the city of London. The point I should like to make at this time is that if the results of this vote are any indication of the feelings of the people in my riding then I have every right to be standing in this house and speaking in the manner in which I am speaking.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Certainly.


David Réal Caouette: Why not vote on the amendment?


Campbell Ewing Millar: Why don't you fellows go outside and settle the argument and let me talk?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member that he direct his remarks to the Chair. The Chair is listening very attentively to them.


Campbell Ewing Millar: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. You are absolutely right. I suggest that other people in the house should do likewise rather than addressing their remarks to me. Following the ballot held in this schoolroom I gave the children the opportunity of asking questions which I answered to the best of my ability in a strictly non-political way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Well, I was at least fair enough to suggest to that class that the next member of parliament who addressed them might be of a different political faith than that represented by myself. To get back to the questions, there was one question I could not answer. A young lad about 10 years of age spoke up and said: "Mr. Millar, why do the people of Canada not have the opportunity to vote on the new flag?" What I should have done was suggest that he direct that question to the Prime Minister of the country.
The present government has tried to justify the introduction of this controversial issue on the ground that it will unite Canada. I suggest that if the division throughout Canada is indicated by the division in this house and the present controversy, the Prime Minister of the country has done the greatest disservice he could possibly do, and that the only way the situation can be remedied is to take this issue out of the House of Commons.
X for one, Mr. Speaker, question the design of the present flag. X question the sincerity of the present leader of the government.
Canadian Flag
Where is the Prime Minister who stood up and said: "I support the tri-maple leaf flag and I am prepared to have my government stand or fall on that design"?


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Where are those few members on the government side who stood up and took up the time of the house trying to justify that design as having historical significance, and as being the only flag design acceptable in this situation? Where are they today? Where are those members of the government who blindly support the government and refuse to stand up in the House of Commons and justify their position? Are those the people who continually say "question, question", and are prepared to vote blindly?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I question the design of this flag.


Gilles Grégoire: Dispense.


Campbell Ewing Millar: In support of my stand I should like to read a letter into the record. I think all members should listen to this, particularly those French Canadian members who are so interested in interrupting me. This letter is written by one, Lord Elgin, at Quebec. The date of the letter is September, 1847.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am wondering whether that letter is relevant to the amendment before us.


Campbell Ewing Millar: If it is not relevant I am prepared to have it struck from the record. It is dated Quebec, September 27, 1847 and is written by one, Lord Elgin.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Reading letters dating from 1845 or 1847 is really too much. Do you think the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. Millar) abides by the rules? We of the Ralliement Creditistes, as well as some members of other parties have both feet on the ground. People ask why the Tories are filibustering; it is precisely because they are up in the clouds, they balk. We expressly object to this letter being read, and we request that the hon. member be called to order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I see that the hon. member for Quebec West shares the apprehension of the Chair as to whether this

Canadian Flag
letter is relevant to the debate or not. However, it is not easy to give a ruling before the letter has been read, at least in part.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, as this letter goes back to 1847, that is over a century ago, it is exactly the reason why I object to its being read.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Middlesex East has the floor. As part of his argument he proposes to read a letter which may be perfectly relevant, or which may possibly be relevant to the debate. It is impossible for the Chair to determine that until the letter has been read, or referred to to some extent. I would invite the hon. member to continue his remarks and perhaps
as he proceeds to read the letter it may be easier for the Chair to make a decision.


David Réal Caouette: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the hon. member for Middlesex East is reading to us a letter dating back to 1847. Does he imply that we in the House of Commons are Indians? What does he mean by his letter?
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock? [Text]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Mr. Speaker will have the privilege of rendering a decision on this interesting point tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 10, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith.
Campbell Ewing Millar: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the debate at six o'clock last night I was questioning the authority of this minority government to impose a new flag on the people of Canada without giving them the opportunity of indicating their feelings in this regard. Further to that and in support of this position I would like to read into the record a letter dated Quebec, September 27, 1847.


Gilles Grégoire: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I ask the hon. member whether the letter is relevant to the question of a plebiscite that we are discussing at the present time.


Campbell Ewing Millar: I consider it so, Mr. Speaker. Should you rule that it should be stricken from the record, I am prepared to accept your decision. This is an authentic copy of a letter taken from the public archives of Canada reproduced as one of a series appearing weekly in the London Free Press. It is from one James Bruce, Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, to Earl Grey, dated Quebec, September 27, 1847, and reads as follows:
My Dear Grey:
I write from Quebec and shall not trouble you with a long letter. We have been well received here. The St. Georges and St. Jean Baptiste societies turning out together for the first time and the president of the former wearing the maple leaf, the Canadian French emblem ...
I repeat, Mr. Speaker:
-wearing the maple leaf, the Canadian French emblem...
My question, Mr. Speaker, is this. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister, the leader
of a minority government, to destroy a Canadian flag bearing the heraldic symbols of all the founding races of this country and substitute a flag bearing the traditional symbol of only one of these founding races? The Prime Minister has suggested that the prime purpose of the introduction of this flag in the House of Commons at this time is that a new flag will serve to unite all of Canada. With this principle I think all Canadians agree, but with the method adopted and with this suggested design many of us disagree.
Again I ask, Mr. Speaker: surely the Prime Minister of this country does not seek unity under a distinctive Canadian flag in a design such as now proposed, which in effect destroys all reference to the Anglo-Saxon traditions, substituting for this present flag a new flag design bearing only a single maple leaf which was recognized 120 years ago as the Canadian French emblem. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that our French Canadian members in this House of Commons would not support this position. They themselves have stated on many previous occasions that they are not anxious to have the fleur-de-lis, the traditional emblem of France, as a part of a new Canadian flag, similar to the flag design presently used in the province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Question.


Campbell Ewing Millar: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is more than just a debate on a new flag for Canada. The way this house is divided at present indicates that there is a basic principle at stake. Those members who support the government on every division indicate that they would be prepared to support any design as a new flag for Canada. Their attitude seems to indicate the feeling "Who cares about a new flag for Canada or what the design shall be? Let us vote and get the issue over with". I suggest that there is a much deeper issue involved and that those members who so freely call "Question, question", indicating that they are prepared to vote, are by the same token indicating that they are prepared to deny that same right to the people of Canada.


David Réal Caouette: No, sir, that is not right. That is stupid.

Canadian Flag


Campbell Ewing Millar: The hon. member for Lapointe has had someone tabulate the number of times the word "plebiscite" has been used in this debate. He further quotes statistics in this regard as to the possible waste of time in this house. I should like to suggest to him that if a similar tabulation was kept of the number of times the word "Quebec" had been used in this house he would not find the comparison quite so humorous.
In this same regard, I deplore the remarks that follow when one of the French Canadian members of this party stands to indicate his support for this party in a division. Surely any hon. member who has the courage of his convictions and is prepared to stand up and be counted for or against his party is entitled to that same decency and courtesy which is due to any hon. member of this house. I for one respect the right of any member in this regard, and I do not feel that a member deserves the boos and catcalls of his fellow members.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Campbell Ewing Millar: I am pleased to hear that some of the hon. gentlemen opposite are satisfied. I feel the same way, I can assure you.
It would appear that the government is determined to follow this course of destruction, or should I say desecration, of the red ensign. If such is the case; if this government is prepared to ignore the people of Canada and their basic democratic right to indicate their feelings in this matter, may I make one final plea to the Prime Minister. When the Canadian red ensign is finally taken down from the peace tower of the House of Commons, could that red ensign be placed in a position of honour in the memorial chamber of the same peace tower, to indicate that those Canadians who served in Canada's armed forces have not died in vain and that they have not been entirely forgotten by the grateful people of Canada.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a motion for concurrence in a report of a committee moved by the chairman, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten), and an amendment moved by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith). I should like immediately to ask the government what is its position in this regard. The Prime Minister has not made the government's position clear. Does the govern-
[Mr. Caouette.l
ment accept the recommendation of the committee, and will the flag recommended be the flag of Canada? If the report is concurred in, will the government take action to make this new flag the flag of Canada? Those are some of the things about which the house has a right to know.
What action will be taken by the government to carry out the terms of the order in council of 1945 which clearly set out that the red ensign shall be flown as the distinctive flag of Canada until parliament otherwise directs? These are things we would like to know, for in the intervening months since the Prime Minister made his speech in the house, at which time he said it was a solemn and historic moment in the history of Canada, these questions have not been answered.
Naturally there are a number of other questions that come to mind. What of the three leaf flag? Has it been dropped by the government? Does the Prime Minister now reject the three leaf flag that was the cornerstone of his argument then? These are things we want to know. However, all we have found out as yet is that the government and those associated with them seem agreed on only one thing, namely that whatever the national flag of Canada may be they are almost unanimous in the view that under no circumstances shall it in any way reveal or show or exemplify the symbols of our British or French sovereignty, or the heritage of our past. The Prime Minister has said that the flag to be determined on will be one that will bring about unity within this country. The experience of the last few months has been that while unity was promised, division has been the offspring.
I commence with that general challenge to the Prime Minister to answer these questions that are in the hearts and minds of the Canadian people. The house will agree, I am sure, when I say that while the debate has gone on for some weeks the viewpoint of the government has never been given since the declaration made by the Prime Minister in June, at which time he made it clear that the three maple leaf design with the two blue bars was the only flag for Canada. It had history, heritage, dedication, as well as a declaration behind it of His Majesty George V. None of these things is apparent today in the recommendation of the committee.
I refer for a moment to the report of the committee to lay the foundation for my argument in connection with the need for a plebiscite for Canada and for Canadians,

believing that a plebiscite should encompass not only those who ordinarily would be permitted to vote on the occasion of a general election but as well all Canadians 18 years and over; for the younger Canadians will be the ones who will live the longest under whatever flag is determined upon.
Now, it is of interest that in the committee a motion for a national plebiscite was defeated by a vote of 9 to 5. It is of even greater interest that the adoption of only one national flag was carried by a vote of 14 to 0, only to be altered later apparently following further discussion and deliberation; that the red ensign was not to be the national flag of Canada was determined by a vote of the committee of 10 to 4. Those four were the Conservative members of that committee.
Then, finally, an elimination took place. All this is necessary if one is to understand fully the need for a plebiscite. An elimination took place, and I should like to quote from the committee report so there will be no misunderstanding. There were two classes of flags; class B, those containing one maple leaf, and class C, those containing the union jack and/or the fleur-de-lis. I quote from the report:
Elimination by an agreed procedure left only one design in each category. A vote for the retention of each finalist was then taken with the following results:
A-The three maple leaf design was retained by a vote of 8 to 6;
B-The single maple leaf design was retained by a vote of 13 to 1;
C-The design containing the union jack and/or the fleur-de-lis was rejected by a vote of 9 to 5.
A vote was then taken to determine the committee's preference between the design containing three maple leaves and the design containing one maple leaf. The single maple leaf design was retained by a vote of 14 to 0.
It is made perfectly clear by that vote that it was a preference as between two designs that were before the committee. This is the committee report in part, most of which will have to be, as we say, placed before the Canadian people. It was then moved:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that the Canadian red ensign may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth of nations and of her allegiance to the crown. An amendment was moved to substitute the words "royal union flag, generally known as the union jack" for the words "Canadian red ensign."
The amendment carried by a vote of 7 yeas, 2 nays and 5 abstentions.
There is the background of the matter set out objectively and fairly by quotations from the committee report. What actually hap-
Canadian Flag
pened was that the committee expressed a preference, as I said a moment ago, for the single leaf in an elimination process over the three leaf flag that the government had advanced as its design the first time.
Now, sir, I want to refer to the stand we took on November 9 as to the course that might be adopted, following the report of the committee. I am quoting from page 9877 of Hansard of November 9, 1964:
We were unable to agree with the suggestion that we should apply to ourselves a self imposed closure, but my own feeling is this. In so far as the flag debate is concerned, this represents the views of my caucus, the caucus of the Conservative party-
I think quite a number wish to express themselves on this matter. That does not mean they will be repeating themselves more than once, but they have their views to express and they do not intend to have imposed on them anything in the nature of closure, other than, of course, if the government chooses in its wisdom to bring about that measure: and we will come to that matter if it arises. We do feel however, that in order to expedite the business of the house Canadians as a whole would expect us to vote on the question whether there should be a plebiscite.
Then I went on to ask consideration for that view. Now I want to summarize our position on the report. We cannot accept the recommendation contained therein. The Social Credit party, with one or two exceptions, accept it. The socialist party-they have a maple leaf on their literature-will accept it with one or two exceptions. The Creditistes embrace it because they do not want anything connected with the British tradition on the flag of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: During the progress of that committee we made alternative suggestions with which I shall deal later on. We wanted to bring about in a spirit of compromise the assurance that what would be arrived at would meet with general support across Canada. What was advanced in the committee by the Conservative representatives after the red ensign had been turned down was a design I did not know of and of which I was never informed; I had no information about it until I read a report which a member of that committee gave to the press before that committee reported.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: What was advanced by our members, after first standing on the red ensign, was a flag consisting of two red bars, one bearing the union jack and in the other the fleur-de-lis and in the centre a maple

Canadian Flag
leaf on a white background, in other words representing the two original races of our nation unified with all the other races by the maple leaf. That is what they tried to bring about, again without success.
I would emphasize this fact; that during the entire progress of the committee I refrained from discussing this question with members of that committee so they would not feel in any way that the course they were to follow was dictated in any manner, shape or form. Now we have before us a flag-


Grant Deachman: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and it is a serious one. Mention has been made of an article I wrote and of the fact that there was no communication on the part of the right hon. gentleman with anybody before the decision of the committee was brought down. I have in my hand the Globe and Mail for Friday, October 3 and I wish to read the following-


John George Diefenbaker: This is not a question of privilege. I never mentioned the hon. member. Has he a guilty conscience?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Yesterday when the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra rose on a question of privilege I referred him to Beauchesne, citation 145, which is to the effect that when a member makes a statement it should be accepted by the house. If other members are not prepared to accept such a statement they have to bring a motion and take responsibility for it.
No charge has been made against the hon. member so far in the address of the Leader of the Opposition, and if citation 145 protects the hon. member to my right surely it would operate in this case, too.


John George Diefenbaker: It is perfectly and patently clear that the Conservative members of the committee in introducing their alternative, after the refusal of the committee to accept the red ensign, changed or altered their submission in order to show not only the British tradition of our country but the French as well. They did that to indicate the degree of entire objectivity which characterized the Conservative representation on that committee.
That is the background to the question. I now ask the house-and I intend to answer the question-why do we want a plebiscite? Sir, it is because there is division within our country-


Gilles Grégoire: You have made it.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, the prattlers prattle, but we had nothing to do with introducing the flag question. Did we bring this matter before the house? Has it become a divisive action for a party in the House of Commons to stand against a proposal which a government advances when that proposal does not represent the views of millions of Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We are calling for a plebiscite because we trust the people of Canada to arrive at some decision which will be generally acceptable. I believe this with all my heart, that if this matter were allowed by the government to stand in abeyance, no one suggesting any retreat or departure or deviation from the parliamentary course; if it were allowed to stand and if at the next general election a number of questions were asked in a plebiscite, then whatever was believed by a majority in this country as shown by such a plebiscite would be acceptable to all Canadians, because we are all desirous of bringing about unity in the national purpose and for national ends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Not true.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot translate into understandable words those interruptions, but no doubt they are intelligible to the hon. gentleman who is making them.
Sir, there are many people in this country who want the red ensign. There are many others who want a red ensign with a change therein so as to recognize the contribution made by the two original races. Some there are who, convinced by months of propaganda, now want the three maple leaf design. After all, it was a concept which was widely advertised, and it was placed on stamps by coincidence. There are Canadians who like that design. Certainly the Post Office Department, though I admit the Postmaster General did not know anything about this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -had that stamp issued. It was just what some call the purest of coincidence, in keeping with the fact that ministers opposite apparently do not communicate with one another or pass on information.
My correspondence shows there are fewer people who want the one maple leaf design, the recommendation of the committee. You can understand that. You cannot expect the Canadian people to be able to follow the

peregrinations of a government which started out with a three maple leaf flag, said it was the only true Canadian design, that it was based on history, heraldry and structure, and then changed its mind. One hon. member said it was a flag design that was sanctified as well; he stated that it was full of historic meaning, symbolic validity and national appeal. It was, he said, the only flag that could be accepted.
I point out that we asked for a plebiscite as far back as May 20. When I asked for a plebiscite and it was suggested there should be a submission of the question to the people by way of referendum, the Prime Minister said that course would not be followed. All the way along we took the stand that, after all, it is the people who are going to live under this flag who should have a say as to the nature and design of that flag.
So that the record will be complete, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that on July 22, when speaking on the national television network, I said we wanted the people of Canada to have a say in the matter. I suggested that a plebiscite be granted to the Canadian people in order that we could determine their wishes. I said that such a plebiscite could take place at the next general election. Among the questions to be asked-and I set them out-I suggested: Are you in favour of the red ensign? Are you in favour of the red ensign with changes made thereon to show both heritages? Are you in favour of the three maple leaves joined together?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Listen to the conscientious objectors.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a few short weeks ago those who now prate and interrupt were in favour of that which today they condemn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I also suggested the
question: Are you in favour of one maple leaf? Since then I would also add: Are you in favour of that which was presented as an alternative and a compromise by the Conservative members of the flag committee?


Gilles Grégoire: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is just an echo I am hearing, but it certainly is not intelligible.


Gilles Grégoire: No.
Canadian Flag


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: It is a reflection on Quebec, I'll tell you that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hold to the opinion that order and decorum in this House of Commons is extremely important. It is in the tradition of our two races, and it should be maintained. It is incorporated in our standing orders. I would refer to standing order 35:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the royal family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof.
May I appeal to hon. members that when an officer of the house in the person of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is making a speech, which no doubt is quite a physical effort, he should be given due respect and attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind questions at all, but it is difficult to speak against a cacophony. It is like a symphony continuing while one speaks.


George Clyde Nowlan: One of the broken ones.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Sit down, little squirt.


Gilles Grégoire: -may I ask a question-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had come to the point where I said that included in the plebiscite should be the design submitted by Conservative members as an alternative in order to bring members together, namely the one to which I referred earlier. There are some who say if we had a plebiscite we would divide this nation. Plebiscites have been held in the past that did not have that effect. Plebiscites are held on matters which have an emotional effect. Plebiscites have been recommended by such prime ministers as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Robert Borden-when he was in opposition-and Mr. Mackenzie King on matters that touch the heart and the sentiment of a people. No one can successfully argue that members of this parliament on either side have ever let the Canadian people know that, standing as they did for a distinctive flag-and I think each and every one did-what the Liberal party had in mind was a flag devoid of anything suggesting our British heritage or indeed our French heritage.

Canadian Flag
The arguments have changed in connection with the holding of a plebiscite. Your Honour will recall that the Prime Minister, when speaking in June, said it would take time; that was an argument against it. He said, speaking of the plebiscite of 1942 on conscription, that it required many months from the introduction of legislation on February 13, 1942 to the announcement of the result on May 11, 1942. That was the excuse in June, that it would take time. I do not think anyone will say any more that this excuse is tenable. On more than one occasion we advanced this idea. Some will say this would create discord in the nation; that elections, as the Prime Minister said, are by constituencies and that the cleavages would be highlighted in a plebiscite in the same manner as in an election. Well, Mr. Speaker, if there is any danger of dividing the country, that could be met by the votes being counted not by provinces but by a central committee, so there would be no indication as to how any one province voted but they would vote one and all as Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The next objection was that it would cost millions of dollars, $10 million and more. Nothing of the kind, if held at the time of a general election; and with all the billions of dollars that are being spent, if it did cost $10 million that would be a cheap expenditure to bring about within this nation a feeling of unity in this regard.
Would it be divisive? Is Ottawa divided as a result of the fluoridation and Sunday sport plebiscite of the other day? Every argument advanced is dissipated by the facts of life. We in this party trust the people. We want the people to have the right to speak. We want to know that whatever flag is chosen is the flag Canadians want, not one imposed by concealing from the Canadian people the true facts about the kind of distinctive flag they intended to advance. Now they are supported by their allies in this house.
That there is uncertainty about this is revealed by the fact that the government itself has changed its view. I do not want to recall in detail the change of viewpoint, but is it not a strange thing that a few months ago the government said "Three maple leaves or disunity in Canada"? Only Her Majesty's loyal opposition stood against that statement, and hon. gentlemen opposite called it obstruction. They said they had a design which would unite the Canadian people. Then when the committee met they swallowed their

views and went contrary to that which they said was the only design for Canada.
The Prime Minister said that a one maple leaf design was not acceptable, that it would not be suitable, and I will refer to that in a moment. What happened? Why the change? During the months of May, June, July and August these hon. members opposite, with their allies, were talking in favour of the three maple leaf flag, describing it as the only one. Then suddenly, overnight as it were, they changed their attitude. Were they right when they tried to push down the throats of Canadians the three maple leaf flag? Were they consistent when they abdicated from their previous position? I would be glad to hear the answers to those questions.
I said a moment ago that they educated the people into believing that the three maple leaf flag was the only flag. Let us just review events for a moment, because this shows that these hon. members opposite did not know themselves where they stood. They were united in support of something they jettisoned at the first opportunity. They tell me that a plebiscite is not necessary. If, Mr. Speaker, a plebiscite had been taken of the views of government members in May, June, July and August they would all have voted in favour of the three maple leaf flag. But what do they say of it now? They have changed their views, a not unusual course on the part of this government.
Hon. gentlemen opposite started out on this education process on April 17 when, as I said a moment ago, the stamps were issued by the department of the Postmaster General. On April 17, when the Prime Minister was asked in the House of Commons whether this was the chosen design, the design elect, he said it was pure speculation. Yet all across Canada, on that day and on following days, a picture of the three maple leaf flag was printed in the newspapers.
Then on May 14 the Prime Minister unveiled his flag to newsmen, tastefully draped on the mantelpiece at Sussex drive. On May 14, when asked in the House of Commons whether this was going to be Canada's flag, he said that no decision had been made. On May 16 the Postmaster General explained in an interview the symbolism of the three maple leaf design, stating that one leaf represented the English, one represented the French and the third represented those of other origins. That was the view of someone in his department and was not the fact. It had no basis in fact, for one has only to-


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


John George Diefenbaker: No, the hon. gentleman cannot interrupt me now.


Mr. Speaker:: The Postmaster General is rising on a question of privilege.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this matter was raised during the last speech made by the right hon. gentleman. At that time I rose and stated that when his government were in power they issued a press release stating what the three maple leaves stood for. It was not this government which initiated that particular explanation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that statement came from the same department. All I have to say in that connection is that that was unadulterated nonsense. In 1868, when the coat of arms of Quebec bore three maple leaves on one stem, was anybody thinking at that time of other racial origins? In 1868 in the province of Ontario, when that design appeared on a memorial plate of Ontario, was anybody thinking then about this? They could have been thinking of those of German or Dutch origin, because there were some 220,000 of them in Canada; but this had no basis in fact. It was simply part of the softening process of this government to bring about a flag which the Prime Minister desired.
On May 17 the three maple leaf flag was unveiled before the Royal Canadian Legion. The Prime Minister disavowed the ensign and talked about his maple leaf flag. On May 18 he revealed the design to the press at Winnipeg. Then he denied in parliament that a decision had been made. On May 29 he brought the design before parliament, and then placed on the order paper a resolution containing two parts. This is a resolution which should be placed on the record because it indicates, Mr. Speaker, that the government did not know where it was going. One of the reasons we want to bring back a sense of reason is to give the Canadian people the opportunity of saying what in fact they want. The resolution then read:
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-
Canadian Flag
The resolution also provided:
-that the royal union flag, generally known as the union jack, may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canadian membership in the commonwealth of nations and of our allegiance to the crown.
Then, sir, on the basis of the authorities and by virtue of the power possessed by Your Honour, you divided that resolution into two resolutions.
During the progress of the debate-and this shows how uncertain the government has been of its stand-the members of the government marshalled all the arguments of heraldry. The Minister without Portfolio went into the flag business. He had 100,000 of them made. I do not know, in the bankruptcy proceedings in connection with these flag designs, who is responsible for them or whether they will be designated as plain ordinary furniture; all I know is that they said our opposition to the three maple leaf flag was disruptive of Canadian unity. They tried to bludgeon us. They tried to threaten us. First of all they said there would be an election. Then they talked of closure. But Her Majesty's loyal opposition stood for what it believed in; a matter of principle, not an expedient to be adopted to meet every changing wind of public opinion.
Hon. gentlemen opposite said that because they had a majority in parliament, with the help of their complacent supporters and the complacent support of third parties, therefore indeed they were infallible in their viewpoint. They could not help but be right. Walter Lippmann once said in this connection the idea that because you could command a majority, therefore you were right, is heresy. He said it was heresy to think a majority could do no wrong; that there is no higher truth than the transient opinion of contemporary majorities, and there is no higher law than the ambitions and manoeuvres of the persons the people are persuaded to elect. He said that was also heresy.
When the government found they could not push us around they changed their viewpoint from that which they held at the beginning, that unless this resolution was passed and everybody voted in the right way the vote would be regarded as a vote of nonconfidence. When the opposition took a strong stand they then said no, it will be a free vote. The freedom of that vote will be indicated by the attitude the members on that side have taken toward the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) who is treated almost as a pariah.

Canadian Flag
Why deny our historic past? Why say that we should not have on our national emblem something of the greatness of our past, and something of the French contribution? History tells the reason. In 1776 what could one expect of the French colonists in Canada of that day, who only had a few years under British rule, but that they would rebel? That is what the leaders of the army of the 13 colonies thought, but the French stood firm.
What happened in 1812 when the United States commander, General Hull, said to Canadians "You people surrender or things will be terrible because we will overrun you and destroy you"? The answer given by the French Canadians was "We shall not surrender. We stand behind those institutions which have given us freedom."
When I hear hon. members sitting opposite in this house, and some of those to my left, ridiculing the possession of British citizenship by Canadians, I am reminded of the words of Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, who occupied the position you occupy, Mr. Speaker, and who gave his 17 year old son on the field of sacrifice in the first world war. He said:
II you ask me why I am a British subject, and why I wish to remain one. I reply.. .that I prize most those institutions that secure me most strongly in our rights and liberties; and am proud to be a sharer in that great work of advancing peace and progress throughout the world, for which the British empire stands.
That is the view of French Canada today among those who are being responsible in their positions.


Gilles Grégoire: Who said that?


John George Diefenbaker: I am not speaking about that hon. gentleman; I am speaking about the great heart of French Canada. Is it not time that we recall something of the change of thinking on the part of the Prime Minister? On June 15 as recorded at page 4322 of Hansard he said this:
Indeed, the three joined red maple leaves have for us a historic and heraldic significance which, in my view, make them preferable on a flag, to a single maple leaf which has not the same significance and has not, in fact, any formal emblematic authority-
What happened, Mr. Speaker? Do you expect the Canadian people led by ideas such as that not to be able to determine that they have been misled?
The Prime Minister then said in summary that heraldically and historically that was the only suitable flag, and I want to make this clear because this shows the political attitude of this government and their willingness to change their viewpoint. It is very

much like the position of Mr. Dooley, who said "This is what I think, but if you do not agree with me I am prepared to change my view." One cannot run a government that way.
This is what the Prime Minister said when dealing again with the three maple leaves design:
It is because this design has such a history and because, with the blue sea to sea border it makes a striking and beautiful flag, that the government is putting it before parliament in this resolution. The single maple leaf, I repeat, has not the same historical and heraldic significance even though it also, with the blue borders, I am told makes a very attractive flag.
That was what the Prime Minister said in June, that the blue borders indicating Canada from sea to sea in fact make the flag more attractive. Where are the blue borders on the flag proposed today that were so attractive in June? Then dealing with the argument about history the Prime Minister said:
It is argued, Mr. Speaker, and I can appreciate the strength of the argument, that the flag of this resolution ignores our past. In my view it does not.
Then he said:
In light of this, Mr. Speaker, can there be any doubt that the design recommended in the resolution is a proper one; with Canadian history, Canadian tradition and official sanction on the highest levels behind it?
The members on that side of the house do not themselves know what they want. What they argued in June they have repudiated in September. Yet had it not been for the Conservative party, as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, we would now have the flag of the three maple leaves design; and we might have had it on July 1, the original deadline. The government then thought it would be good to have that flag for the visit of the Queen in October, but again there was a postponement until Christmas.
Is it not clear from reading what was said by the Prime Minister that the arguments which we advanced had some basis in fact? If that is not so, why did the members of the Liberal party on that committee, without direction, without suggestion and without even telepathic consideration, suddenly see the light and decide that the views of the Prime Minister in June were entirely without basis in fact? Perhaps we are to interpret what took place as an indication that the Liberal members on that committee revolted against the Prime Minister's flag-perish the thought. Did they act with such unanimity because they had been given instructions? I suggest that was not the case.

They have now suggested that a plebiscite would be disruptive. I should like to refer to the criticism of the Progressive Conservative party for taking a stand on a plebiscite. We have been condemned and reviled, and called obstructionists.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, one can take a donkey and give him arguments, but one cannot give him the sense to understand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I immediately assure you, Mr. Speaker, that had no reference to anyone. It was just a philosophical observation.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think this is justified on my part, because we have heard enough falsehoods and lies this afternoon concerning what happened in the House of Commons during the last three or four months.
I think the leader of the official opposition is listening to me. When he said, a few moments ago, that, with the complacent support of the third parties in the house-he did mention us, if not by name, by implication-the three maple leaf flag was changed to a design with a single maple leaf, and that everybody had complied with the wishes of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: I can understand the Conservatives not enjoying having the facts thrown in their face, but they will get them nevertheless.
Mr. Speaker, the setting up of the parliamentary committee to consider the choice of a distinctive flag was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and nobody else.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of privilege. I have sat here and listened to this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -and all I say is that a speech is in order if the hon. gentleman wants to make it.


Mr. Speaker:: I am quite sure that if the hon. member for Villeneuve wishes to take part in the debate he will have an opportunity in due course, but I do not see a point of privilege. No particular label or name of
Canadian Flag
any particular party was used. The term could be applied to anyone in the chamber.


John George Diefenbaker: I entirely agree with you, Mr. Speaker, but I think you went a little wide there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Villeneuve is really engaging in an argument, not a point of privilege. An opportunity will be provided in due course for the hon. member to take part in the debate.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I do not intend to participate in this debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am asking you whether one raises a question of privilege when one tries to prevent someone from lying in this house?


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there was no such word used. I do not want to interpolate anything in my speech that might cause exacerbated feelings on the part of the hon. gentleman but if he is interested he might refer to what he said about various Liberal members now sitting in the government during the last election campaign. I will use those statements whenever the opportunity demands; I have them here. The hon. member speaks of words that shock his finer sensibilities. He referred to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis), who certainly made the hon. member's life miserable during the last election campaign-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -as an imbecile, fool, animal, bloodsucker, and dishonest leader.


An hon. Member:: For once he was right.


John George Diefenbaker: With a flow of non-vituperative language like that I can understand that the hon. member would be shocked to associate himself with any animal. I could go into that at length but I really do not want to. It has been said that because we dared to take this stand we have therefore been obstructive. Because we have taken a stand on behalf of the Canadian people and their rights it has been said that we have held up parliament.

Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: All I have to say in that connection is that the Prime Minister spoke in Hamilton, and that was not the view he expressed there. In fact he said that the 22 days that had been spent on the flag debate before the committee was set up were not lost. He boasted at that time of what his government had achieved. He said that nothing was really lost because we would have had a vacation at the time if the house had not been sitting.
Again, there is the argument that it is costing Canada millions of dollars for the sitting of parliament. Sir, the members of this house receive their pay whether or not the house is sitting, and the total cost per week does not run into millions of dollars. I have mentioned the cost and the results. The Prime Minister made the situation perfectly clear when he set out in detail the tremendous record of achievement. So there will be no mistake, so that all may read, in his interview with Mr. Berton he said:
We have spent 23 days in the House of Commons debating the flag, which I think is too long, but those 23 days were at a time when normally we would have been having a holiday so while we may have spent a long time we have not sacrificed parliamentary business in doing that.
I want to thank the Prime Minister for that clear and unequivocal statement, which clears up the situation. I have already dealt with what happened in the committee and I am not going to repeat what I have already said in that connection. However, I want to point out now that we in this party believe, with all Canadians, in a distinctive Canadian flag, but we say that such a flag should have thereon the union jack and we also say it should have thereon the fleur-de-lis. You say to me that the Conservative party is trying to impose its viewpoint on one province. Not at all. We are not trying to tell any province or any group of people what they should do. We are Canadians who put the nation first, and we ask that the Canadian people as a whole shall make the decision.
Let me tell you that I speak as one of mixed origin. I can look at both sides of the question. On one side I am of German and Dutch origin. My people came to Canada 150 years ago. The German people made their contribution to this country in the area of Nova Scotia around what is now Lunenburg when they came there in 1750. In western Ontario and eastern Ontario many of the United Empire Loyalists were of German or

Dutch origin. We are not separating people by origins in that way. We are building Canada.
It is said that the union jack is a foreign flag. I saw an argument advanced the other day that any flag with a union jack on it would be a sign of subservience because it is foreign. I do not answer that except to say that Right Hon. Mackenzie King never had that view, and Mr. St. Laurent never had that view. Yet we are to erase the whole of our past; that is what we are asked to do. We are asked to forget the legacy of the missionaries, explorers, nation builders and statesmen of the French race, to wipe out the legacy of Champlain, Frontenac, Lafontaine and Cartier, to wipe out the contribution of the British to Canada.
No other race has that viewpoint. The British and the French came here because of freedom in this country. They founded here a country that was the first in any part of what is the commonwealth today to have religious freedom, the first in which slavery was abolished, and the first country in which representative government was developed. These are our traditions, and we are asked to wipe them out.
We are asked to sanctify disunity by supporting a flag that will bring about greater division. As a matter of fact the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), whose views receive frequent reference in the house, speaking at Quebec city on February 2, 1962, realized what the divisive effect would be of not having a union jack on any distinctive flag when he used these words:
Mr. Pickersgill said the union jack was too intimately associated with Canadian history to be completely abandoned for the sake of other designs. He warned that if the union jack is dropped completely from the Canadian flag this might cause a deep rift among Canadians.
Those were wise words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whether those were wise words or whether they were not, they were not my words.


An hon. Member:: Misquoted again.


John George Diefenbaker: I have just quoted from the Canadian Press dispatch, and this is not the first time the hon. gentleman has had to repudiate a statement he has made. I can understand that he may have some objection to the fact that I characterized his views as being wise.
The stand we have taken has been a stand for unity within the country. I recall an hon. member speaking on June 30, at which time he waxed poetic in regard to the three maple

leaves. He said this was a flag on which our young men would see visions and our old men would dream dreams. This was the hon. member for Leeds dreaming in June, and forsaking in September the principles for which he then stood. This shows the fast change in thinking of those who dream dreams in June and have nightmares in July and August.
I say to the hon. gentleman opposite and those associated with him that we believe this matter should be submitted to the people. I believe the Prime Minister would take the greatest step forward if, knowing the division within the country, he were to announce that this matter should be given what is sometimes described as a hoist. It should be given time. Place it before the Canadian people at an election and let the people decide. I say to them, to the majority, you may trample on our viewpoint; you may ridicule the stand we take; you may decry; you may, when you vote on the question of a plebiscite, possibly boast that you have triumphed if our request is turned down. However, it will be no triumph for Canadian unity. I am not interested in party triumphs on this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am interested in my fellow Canadians. I hope this applies to those sitting on the opposite side of the house, and I am not speaking for those who would tear the flag down, as they have said over and over again.


An hon. Member:: That is a lie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I heard a word, but in fact I am not at all sure. In fact I might say that I did not hear it and I hope I will not hear it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am one of those, Mr. Speaker, who are fortunate in that I cannot hear all interruptions.
I should like to see action taken that would bring about unity. However, we have stood, we have fought, we have upheld what we believe to be an important matter of principle. There is another report of the committee, No. 7. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in that connection, whether in the event this question is voted upon by this house, the other resolution will come up immediately; with this proviso, that we should have our question period restored by the consent of the house. Many questions have arisen in the last ten days which demand answers and which I know the government is desirous of answering. What does the government intend
Canadian Flag
to do? Does it intend to proceed with the motion to concur in that other report? I hope the Prime Minister, when he replies, will let the house know.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman would like a reply at once-because it may be that we will have a vote after his statement and I might not have an opportunity then-I should like to tell him that it is the intention of the government to ask the chairman of the flag committee to move concurrence in the final report as soon as this debate concludes. Whether that can be done immediately after the conclusion of this debate will depend, of course, on the time of day this debate ends.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister say whether it is the intention of the government to have the second motion for concurrence passed by the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think there should be provision made between the two debates for a question period. We have already made a proposal to that effect, and I hope we can get unanimous agreement to provide for a question period between the two debates. If that can be done, we have no other item of business to put before the house, to give precedence to that order over the one I have just mentioned, the seventh report of the committee. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would allow me to ask him a question at this moment; that is, if he is agreeable now that we should have a vote immediately on the amendment and on the main motion for concurrence.


John George Diefenbaker: I recognize the desire of the right hon. gentleman to be fully advised, but the course we will take will be determined in the light of the circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That sounds like Mackenzie King.


John George Diefenbaker: There are two or three
matters of legislation upon which we have been pressing for the consideration of the house. Indeed, we have moved the adjournment of the debate in order to permit of these matters being considered. We also joined with our colleagues to the left in the house in the vote in favour of calling orders of the day so that all these matters should receive the consideration of parliament.
Now, sir, I summarize my views and those of the party I have the honour to lead. I know that what I say will have no effect on the thinking of hon. members opposite or of

Canadian Flag
those who support the report of the committee. I think a grave error will be committed and Canadian unity will suffer if this flag design is adopted. It is just another step, many Canadians feel, along the road. Within the last few days a Liberal member has prophesied that within 15 years Canada will be a republic. We in this party do not accept that belief. During the past months great harm has been done to the unity of the nation, greater than during any other period of my lifetime. I say that after measured consideration.
We are not going to build a nation with two flags; we will not make Canada into a nation by building states within a state. These things are the antitheses of everything for which in the past all our prime ministers have stood. Our view is that a new flag is not this nation's greatest need. Our responsibility is to build a nation, for no flag will bring about unity of a nation; the unity of a nation will bring about a flag which is acceptable to all.
The beliefs we have advanced have been deeply felt. I know there are some who say we are too emotional on this question. Mr. Speaker, the things of the spirit bring about those feelings. We have spoken for a flag which would bring with it a spirit of remembrance and honour for those who discovered this land; a flag which would have on it an exemplification of the richness of Canada's past. We have spoken for an emblem, the union jack, which has never on this North American continent been an emblem of oppression or dishonour. We have spoken for an emblem under whose folds our churches, our schools, our religions, all the precious things of our lives, have been protected and guaranteed. We have spoken for the millions in this land who cherish that emblem and whose voices are stilled. Some say we should apologize for that stand. God forbid that in this country we should apologize for standing for those things which made this nation great.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday an American sent me a calendar showing the United States flag, the original one which Washington carried at Valley Forge, and the first Betsy Ross flag. On that calendar were these words of Woodrow Wilson, great philosopher president of the United States:
The flag Is the embodiment.. .of history. It represents the experiences made by men and women, the experiences of those who do and live under that flag.

I am about through. I ask this house: In what way does the design now proposed embody our history? It denies Cardinal Newman's saying that all greatness rests upon the shoulders of past generations. In what way does it represent the sacrifices, the experiences, the achievements of the past? Are we to eradicate the past, to remove all vestige of the things which brought my forefathers here on both sides, and the forefathers of hon. gentlemen everywhere in this house? Edmund Burke said all human society was a partnership between the living and the dead. This design denies that partnership. There is nothing in this design for memoried sorrow or old renown. There is nothing for those who with sword and crucifix went into the wilderness where they left their names and often their bones as a sacred heritage for us all. There is nothing for those who came in the glorious days of French Canada as explorers and navigators and builders. There is nothing of the heroic and legendary pioneers, tales of whose courage are our common glory.
The reading of history proves that a nation which forgets its past condemns its future. This design forgets our past. Individuals and nations cannot ignore the fact of a nation's past when determining the shape of its future. Are we as Canadians to have a flag which treats our memories, our past sacrifices, all the milestones of greatness as irrelevancies? Let Canadians have an opportunity of saying what they want. That is the fight we fought. It is the fight we are continuing to fight. Had it not been for us, you would have the design which is now disavowed. If viewpoints change so much in three or four months, is it beyond the realm of possibility that, should this new design become our flag in a few months hence, Canadians as a whole will feel their past has been forgotten? Once done, I can see no change for the future. I make this last appeal: Do not tear down in this nation the whole history of our past.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With permission, I wonder if I could suggest that in the circumstances we might forgo the private members' hour in order that after 240 speeches on the flag question we might be able to come to a decision on this matter before six o'clock?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker; we want to hear from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who has not spoken on this subject for six months.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any pairs to be declared?
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions for papers, private bills and public bills.

Private Bills PRIVATE BILLS



ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Miss Pauline Jewel! (Northumberland) moved the second reading of Bill No. S-36, to incorporate association of universities and colleges of Canada.
She said: I am honoured to have been asked to introduce this bill in this chamber. The purpose of it is to incorporate a new nationwide, bilingual body to replace two existing organizations. The new body is to be known as the association of universities and colleges of Canada-l'association des universites et colleges du Canada. This will replace two existing organizations, the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges, commonly known as the N.C.C.U.C., which is a non-incorporated body, a voluntary association of universities and colleges, and the Canadian universities foundation, commonly known as the C.U.F. which is an incorporated body.
The purpose of combining these two existing organizations into a single new organization is primarily to facilitate the work of the universities and colleges of Canada in their task of promoting higher education in this country. No new tasks are being given to the association of universities and colleges in this field. It was necessary, however, that the new body be incorporated because it will be taking over the functions of one of the previous bodies, the Canadian universities foundation, and one of these functions was the distribution of federal grants to the various universities; and it is of course necessary to be an incorporated body before this can be done.
There will be ample opportunity to discuss the bill in detail when it goes to committee should any hon. members wish to have fuller information. I might, however, draw on the evidence which was given by the president of the new association, Principal J. A. Corry, of Queen's University. In the course of the evidence given before the committee on banking and commerce in the other place on Wednesday, November 4, 1964, Dr. Corry stated:
We are not interested in any new departures, but only to develop further the kind of things we have been doing and to do them more efficiently. We discovered in the last few years that the secretariat, which tries to. serve both the voluntary association and this corporation-
He is referring to the secretariat of the Canadian universities foundation and the N.C.C.U.C.
-gets involved in a great deal of duplication in bringing the same material before both bodies.

That occurs at a time when the universities are under such heavy demands and when we do not want to be engaged in any kind of wasteful effort that we can possibly avoid.
Then he goes on to say:
There is one other reason I wish to mention. The Canadian universities foundation as presently organized is such that, as we have discovered, there is no satisfactory way of ensuring that we get on to the present corporation a fair representation of the universities of the different regions and, of course, of the universities of the two official languages. The new proposal is a way of trying to meet that serious objection through the present form.
Dr. Corry goes on to give other reasons for the establishment of the single, new, nation-wide bilingual organization. It is important for us to bear in mind that this request comes from all the universities and colleges of Canada that are now members or are eligible for membership; they number 46, I believe. These are both English and French speaking institutions, and are to be found in the schedule to Bill No. S-36. It was at their request that this bill was brought forward in the other place, where it has been passed, and it is now being brought forward here. I trust that all hon. members will want to do whatever we can to assist the universities of this country to do their job as well as they can. If they all feel, as I do, that one of the best ways for them to do their own job most effectively and most efficiently is through a single organization combining the two existing organizations, then I hope we will do all we can to facilitate this request.
I understand there is a possibility that some members of this chamber intend to filibuster this bill today; indeed the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) was kind enough to tell me that they did not intend to let it pass, the reason being, I understand, that they are not prepared to let any measures pass that come to us from the other place. I find this very disturbing because the association of universities and colleges-which as I say, represents all institutions at this level of learning in Canada-is very anxious to get its new form and get down to business under its new organization.
As I have already indicated, it is a bilingual organization. It is one of the organizations which we, surely, in this country want to do all we can to help develop, since as we all know there is a tendency nowadays for many professional and other organizations to split off into their English and French sections and become two separate groups. This association of universities and colleges is not doing that, and therefore it seems to me

we should give it even more support than we would ordinarily.
I make a plea, therefore, that there not be any attempt made to talk out this bill on grounds which relate to another matter entirely. It is in a sense pure accident that it went through the other place first; it could have gone through this house first, and if we had agreed to the principle of the bill it would have passed this chamber and then gone to the other place and, I assume, would have passed there as it has already. Indeed, should there be any filibuster on this bill, any extended discussion simply to talk it out, I would point out the following.
[Stage Direction]
May I quote the words of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) himself, as recorded on page 10927:
-that is not freedom, but abuse, a tremendous abuse of the freedom of speech.
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I am interested in the concept, and I think this house should support the concept, that universities and colleges are not provincial things in the area of their concern. Universities are, by the very nature of their establishment, things of the world, and I believe that any attempt to promote that aspect of their concern should have the wholehearted endorsement of this house. I was very interested in the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett), who is sponsoring the bill, saying that we in this house are anxious to help the universities. I would think that as well as speaking in this house she would be taking some steps to see that the treasury benches have paid some heed to her plea, because the Canadian universities foundation has had a long-standing appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) for increased grants both capital and operating. That is an aside, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure it will be dealt with in a budget that will come before us very soon.
I have listened for an anticipated objection, of which the hon. member for Northumberland has given the house notice, from the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). I cannot imagine a more cynical way to attack another place or another part of parliament than to hold up this type of bill, if this is to be the case. I hear no denial so I am going to go on with this aspect of my remarks. If the hon. member for Lapointe finds objection in the other place or to the
Private Bills
other place, he has the avenues available to him that the promoters of this bill have had. Private-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I see that the debate concerning Bill No. S-36 is centred around my supposed intentions as stated by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett). I did not object to her statement because I thought that it was insignificant.
However, I would point out to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) that he should inquire about what we are doing and listen to our statements before he makes any comments in this respect, and then he may talk about our intentions.
I disregarded what the hon. member for Northumberland said. She came to my office and, suddenly, she mentioned what I am supposed to have told her, but distorting my thought. 1 did not say anything.
Under the circumstances, I say to the hon. member for Royal that I never made any statement in this respect, and I would ask him to talk about Bill No. S-36 without referring to our intentions.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with this reassuring news that the house has nothing to worry about, and I will certainly not take another minute. All I have to say is that we on this side support the objectives in what is a straightforward piece of legislation which is entitled to the enthusiastic support of all hon. members.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I for one will not attempt to anticipate any remarks that may be made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) or indeed any other member of the house. I rise simply to say that I listened with interest to the introduction of the bill into our house. I notice that its objects are to foster and promote the interests of higher education in Canada. I also notice from a brief examination of the schedule that it appears to be a very representative organization, as proposed in the bill, of the institutions of higher learning in Canada. Therefore I am pleased to join with the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) in indicating my wholehearted support of the bill and of the purposes which those who are seeking to develop this organization have in mind.

Private Bills
I agree with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) that those of us who are members of this house should perhaps, in approving the passage of the bill, indicate that we feel this house has a responsibility to take steps to foster and promote the interests of higher education in Canada to a greater extent than we have in the past; and I hope there will be an early opportunity for us to discuss all aspects of our responsibilities in more detail than I feel it would be in order to do under the bill which is now before us.
I am sure my colleagues will join with me in doing what we can to support them in the passage of this bill through the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we heard, a while ago, the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) advising us of the intentions expressed by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), today or yesterday-I do not quite know- in connection with Bill No. S-36; the hon. member for Lapointe and our party must be given their due.
We feel that Bill No. S-36 is logical and we see no objection to Canadian universities and colleges grouping together in an effort to achieve definite goals and specific aims in their field of endeavour. I was pleased to note that, in clause 10 of the bill, it is specified that the official languages of the association will be French and English and that, in clause 11, the head office of the association will be established in Ottawa, the capital of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the preamble to the bill reads as follows:
Whereas the National Conference of Canadian Universities and Colleges, an unincorporated body, hereinafter called "The Conference", and the Canadian Universities Foundation, a company incorporated pursuant to the Companies Act by letters patent dated February 4, 1959, hereinafter called "the Foundation", have by their petition prayed that it be enacted as hereinafter set forth, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the petition.
There are at least 15 clauses in the bill as well as a schedule listing the colleges and universities which will be members of this new association.
The hon. member for Northumberland said earlier that we would not allow the bill to be passed. It is not because we have anything against the universities and colleges, but because we have a slight grudge against the other place. A bill was introduced a
tMr. Barnett.]
long time ago-my remarks are perhaps out of order, but it is precisely because there is some discrimination against a province which requested the passage of a bill that we object to the passage of other bills. There is a limit to everything. I feel that the patience of the people's representatives, of the members of the house has been overtaxed. We have responsibilities, and I think that any bill likely to promote the development of our country should be considered on its merits, irrespective of political partisanship. We believe that there is in this house some partisanship which should not prevail here. We are ready to pass bills in the best interests of the population or a certain segment of the population needing or asking for more freedom and justice to which they are entitled in every field of our national administation.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of this Bill No. S-36, and as soon as the other place acts fairly towards a certain province, namely British Columbia, we will be ready to pass this bill and we will not raise any objection to it or to the other bills now under consideration for one, two or three months and which have been discussed every Thursday or every second Thursday.
Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-36 will enable colleges and universities, as I said earlier, to look after their own business, to help as much as possible students now attending those colleges and universities or those who will do so in the future. We see that this bill aims at furthering higher education in Canada. I think that students are in a position to help in that respect because they are so directly concerned and because it will be their problems that the association of universities and colleges of Canada will be studying.
Section 3 reads as follows:
Subject to the by-laws which may be enacted from time to time pursuant to section 7. the membership of the association shall be composed of the universities and colleges named in the schedule to this act. and such other corporations, organizations or bodies as are from time to time admitted to membership pursuant to this act.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that colleges and universities in all parts of Canada will be members of that association. In fact, there are members in Nova Scotia, Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario. It seems that all the provinces will be represented, or that colleges and universities in every part of the country will join the association.
In my opinion, colleges and universities show that they have a sense of unity, which

Private Bills
is preached so often in this country. Since those university or college students are getting a higher education, they recognize the need for association, the necessity of uniting in order to reach the objectives peculiar to their situation, to their condition or the need for them to help one another.
Mr. Speaker, if one considers Bill No. S-36, one sees that the University of Montreal, Laval University, Loyola College in Montreal, the university of Trinity college, the University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia, Carleton University here in Ottawa, the University of Ottawa, the College Jean-de-Brebeuf in Montreal, in short all the recognized universities in this country will be members of the association, as well as our leading colleges.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a good movement. The students of our universities and colleges are taking a worth-while step; they are making a commendable effort in order to promote higher education within our country.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say more on the bill before us. However, I should like to say once again that our intention is not to stand in the way of university or college students, but to bring to reason the members of the other place who are delaying a piece of legislation that everybody has been looking forward to for a long time. Under those circumstances, although we earnestly support the principle of Bill No. S-36, we think that eventually, in a week or two, we will have an opportunity to pass this bill without discussion.
But in the meantime we feel it is our obligation and responsibility to say that if democracy does exist in Canada, the time has come to make it clear that the members of this house are not the only ones who have to exercise democratic principles, but that the other place should also respect the soundest principles of democracy in action, a democracy respecting all the people, the provinces, the organizations, the individuals, but especially the province of British Columbia, as we have been requesting for some two or three months.
Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of Bill No. S-36, but we could not let it pass today. However, we will not hesitate to do so as soon as we have evidence that democracy is working in Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say in connection with this bill, but I should like to commend the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) for the moderate tone of his remarks on the legislation under consideration.
I was struck by the spirit in which this measure was prepared. That is precisely the kind of spirit which should exist in Canada. The bill recognizes the two official languages at the same time as the universities and colleges of Canada.
I understand why the hon. member for Villeneuve says that his party and himself cannot, at this time, permit a vote on Bill No. S-36, an act to incorporate the association of universities and colleges of Canada. However, may I make a suggestion to the hon. member?
I understand that the Creditistes may be somewhat angry because the Senate has not yet granted a bank charter to a certain group of citizens from British Columbia. However, I believe that the Creditistes would attain their objective if they confined their opposition to bills concerning the incorporation of new chartered banks or other corporations. But considering that the purpose of this bill is to create an association of Canadian universities and colleges, I believe that if it were passed this afternoon, the hon. member for Villeneuve and his supporters would promote their case, because the population might feel that the group supporting the member for Villeneuve is analysing the situation and showing enough broadmindedness to accept a very important measure which is thoroughly characteristic of our country and which reflects the new spirit which must prevail in this country.
If his group permitted this measure to be passed this afternoon, it would promote, as I said, Canadian unity.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much time, but I do want to speak in support of this bill which has been advanced by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) on behalf of a very responsible body in Canada. Anything we can do to assist universities I think should be done. In this particular instance the cause is a very worthy one.
I have risen as well to condemn the attitude taken by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) who stated that he was in support of the measure, but at the same time held the threat over this house that he would not allow the bill to pass, and that his party would not accede to it until the other place had met the request he has made. I think his

Private Bills
remarks in regard to the other place are irrelevant, and that the attitude he has taken on behalf of his party is certainly a threat, if not implied coercion.


Gilles Grégoire: Make me laugh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member who is now interrupting is attempting to make a mockery of the House of Commons, where the right to free speech is enjoyed except on those occasions when that hon. member interrupts. I hope one of these days the Speaker will name him.
The leader of the Creditiste party is bordering on hypocrisy by speaking in favour of the bill yet refusing to pass it, or alternatively promising that it will pass within two or three weeks, knowing full well that this house may soon adjourn for the Christmas recess. He has stated that he is not going to permit the passage of this bill, but disguised his purposes by suggesting that he is in favour of it. I have risen to register my objection to that kind of action.
This bill has come from the other place and has been approved there. Its objective is worthy. The explanation given by the hon. member for Northumberland has satisfied this house, as far as I am concerned, and I think it should be allowed to pass immediately.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Villeneuve would allow me a question.


David Réal Caouette: Surely.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, a question cannot be allowed, as the hon. member has already spoken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve has completed his remarks.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in this bill. Throughout my adult life I have been in support of anything which will assist in promoting education, but I must admit I am somewhat at a loss in that there is no explanatory note in the bill itself. The only thing on which I can base my support of the bill is the remarks the hon. lady made and also the fact that there must have been a reason for the bill being passed by the other place.
As I said, I understand the purpose of the bill is to promote facilities that will bring our educational institutions closer together,

so that their representatives may discuss educational matters and put forward opinions with the end in view that the educational facilities of this country will provide a better and more advanced education for our young people. However, should the bill not be approved at this time I should like to see some explanatory notes put in it. I foresee that the house will adjourn or prorogue and this bill may come up a second time in the other place. I hope that will not be necessary but if this should happen I suggest to the hon. lady that some explanatory notes should be provided, as is done with all other bills, whether private or public, so that people who have not followed the debate in the other place or even in this house will be able to become more familiar with the bill. However, the hon. lady has given a good explanation of the bill, and based on that explanation I am prepared to say I am in favour of it.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I intended, a minute ago, to direct a question to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).
I understand that another member of that party will probably speak presently, but considering the attitude of the hon. member for Villeneuve and his seemingly hearty approval of the principle of this bill, I would ask him whether it would not be advisable to permit second reading of the bill, so that it could be considered in committee, and let the third reading stand.
That is my suggestion.
I am wondering whether the hon. member for Villeneuve and his colleagues would be ready to accept that suggestion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this bill, but in view of the awkward-I was going to say the dishonest way in which the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) has- [Text]


Pauline Jewett: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, did I hear the hon. member say "dishonest"?


Gilles Grégoire: I said "a dishonest way to introduce the bill".


Pauline Jewett: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that. There was nothing dishonest about the way I introduced the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I am sure the hon. member for Lapointe would not wish to have that remark remain on the record.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if proper attention is paid to the wording, one finds that the word "dishonest" was used; I have not said "deshonnete", I said "malhonnete".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is the same thing.


Gilles Grégoire: It can be seen that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) does not understand the subtleties of the French language.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Much more than you think.


Gilles Grégoire: It is perhaps the reason why he is still mistaken.
In view of the awkward way this bill has been introduced by the hon. member for Northumberland, I believe it is my duty to go over what she stated in her introductory remarks.
We do not object to this bill, Mr. Speaker. I see in the bill a list of the universities which were mentioned a moment ago; I see the name of Laval University, which is a great institution; there I studied philosophy for a year, under qualified teachers, and I had the opportunity of obtaining a diploma. Besides, I studied for several years in the law faculty. I also obtained my B.A.-even if I attended the Jesuits' college, the B.A. was granted by Laval University.
I see the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin). I believe he was once a professor at Laval University.


Mr. Pepin:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: No. Not that one; he was not lucky enough to enter such a great university.
Now, I notice also the names of colleges such as Brebeuf-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, has not the hon. member for Lapointe just proven what was put forward by the hon. member for Northumberland, that is that the hon. member for Lapointe and his colleague, the hon. member for Villeneuve, were going to resort to all kinds of tactics to preclude the passage of the bill this afternoon? It is precisely what the hon. member for Northumberland asserted.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, something is wrong. He is the fourth member of the Liberal party who has risen to speak on this subject; three Tory members have spoken. I am only the second Creditiste to take the floor, and you say that we are the ones blocking the passage of this bill.
Private Bills
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Liberals are a bit off their figuring today.
Besides, I feel I am entitled to speak at least once on a bill to incorporate the association of universities and colleges of Canada.
The hon. member for Northumberland quoted remarks I had made, but then I had figures in support of them. I feel I have the right to repeat them once again since the hon. member left the door open and to correct the impression she wanted to create.
When I say:	"It is no longer freedom
of speech, it is licence or abuse", 229 speeches had been made and 119 hours had been spent on the same matter. But we have been considering Bill No. S-36 for barely 45 minutes.
That is the reason why I say this bill was introduced in a dishonest way, because a 29 day debate is compared to one which started only 45 minutes ago. This bill was introduced in an incompetent manner, and I do not hesitate to say so.
Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that I could see institutions like Brebeuf college, St. Marie college-I must find out why the Jesuits' college, St. Charles Gamier of Quebec is not in this list for, in my opinion, the rector of this college, Father Lariviere, is an extremely competent professor. For a long time he was chairman of the classical colleges in the province of Quebec, of which the Jesuits' college was a member.
This bill is to incorporate the association of universities and colleges, the conference of universities, the foundation of classical colleges. St. Charles Gamier college of Quebec was a member of the foundation of classical colleges, since its director was the able and competent president of the said foundation for several years.
I, therefore, wonder if this is not due to an oversight. But in any event, to make sure no error has been made-


Pauline Jewett: That kind of question can be asked when we go into committee.


Gilles Grégoire: And we intend to ask it when this bill is studied in committee. But first, I wanted to point out this fact, and the hon. member for Northumberland will agree that it was normal and natural, when I saw the list of the colleges, that I should expect to see first, Laval University and St. Charles Gamier college of Quebec. I was pleased to find Laval University, but I must note that-at least at first glance-no classical

Private Bills
college of the city of Quebec is included in that list.
I remember quite well that the St. Jean Eudes college and the Quebec seminary belonged to the classical colleges foundation of the province, which would be part of the association of universities and colleges of Canada.
At any rate, we cannot object to this bill, because colleges and universities have contributed a great deal to the development of our people. Grouped together, those institutions will then be in a better position to set forth their demands. They will have a stronger voice.
It is shameful to find that this year 700 young people were turned away from Laval and Montreal universities for lack of space in the medical school. I would like to conduct a survey among the fathers of those young people; these parents have perhaps denied themselves in order to send their children to public school for seven years and to secondary school for eight more years. The fathers of many of those young people probably were unemployed masons, plumbers, bricklayers, carpenters or electricians who could have constructed buildings for medical faculties. But none the less, those youngsters are refused admittance to those universities after they have completed seven years of primary course and eight years of classical studies. This is a shame in a country like Canada.
This is a scandalous state of affairs when we take into consideration our responsibilities in this regard. The provincial government may say its mea culpa when it accepts such a situation in the province of Quebec and in Canada in this 20th century.
Grouped together, the colleges and universities will be stronger and more vigorous in denouncing these scandals which occur in Canada; I am happy to have the opportunity to mention it.
Universities will then be able to point out to the federal government that it is grabbing all taxes although the provincial government has priority needs, including education.
Unfortunately, the provinces cannot meet all the needs in matters of education because they lack sufficient funds, since the government in Ottawa occupies most fiscal fields.


Mr, Pepin:: Yes, that is true.


Gilles Grégoire: That is right, it is quite true; it is a fact. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) has just put it in

Hansard. He said: Yes. Is not education a primary need in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Is it true, or not, that the provinces need more revenue to satisfy their educational needs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Is it not true that the federal government is collecting the greater part of
taxes in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is quite possible, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the statistics are there to prove it: 60 per cent are collected by the federal government, 20 per cent by the provinces, and 15 per cent by the municipalities and school boards. The federal government he denies everything he said while he crumbs to the provinces.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Gilles Grégoire: It is a fact which the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska cannot deny. Since he became a member of parliament, he denies everything he said while he was a university professor-


Jean-Luc Pepin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Everything the hon. member for Lapointe said about me regarding the past is a lie.


Gilles Grégoire: It is not I who says so. Everywhere in the province of Quebec the students are saying: we used to trust Mr. Pepin but since he became a Liberal member in the federal parliament, he is just like the rest of them.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I do not agree that the hon. member for Lapointe speaks on behalf of all the young people of French Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; I should like to ask the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) if the word he used a moment ago is not a most unparliamentary one?


Jean-Luc Pepin: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. I have been most considerate and gentle in my remarks. I simply denied the hon. member for Lapointe the right to speak on behalf of French Canadian youth. He said that all our French Canadian young people were disappointed with the ideas I was defending now. I cannot see how the hon. member for La-

pointe can speak like this on behalf of our young people in French Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I did not speak
on behalf of French Canadian youth, not in the least.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; perhaps the translation was not correct. If it was not, then of course I will accept the explanation given by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I did not say
the whole French Canadian youth; I said: Wherever we go we meet young students who tell us how disappointed they are with our politicians, because they had confidence in the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, but since he became a Liberal he is now like the others.
That is what I said. If the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska would go back in the province of Quebec from time to time he would find out what the people think of him. He had a brilliant future, but as soon as he became a Liberal it changed.


David Réal Caouette: That altered his future.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Those remarks have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter under consideration, and I hope that you will call the hon. member for Lapointe to order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I think the point of order raised by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is well taken. I suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that he confine himself to the principle of the bill to which we are now giving second reading.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I thank you, but if you read Hansard again, you will see that it is the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska who made the first interjections which were out of order; it is he who wandered from the subject and who delays the debate by his many interjections.
In closing I would like to say that we approve the role of our universities and colleges. As soon as they are united, they will be able to speak more forcefully to the federal government in order to expose its attitude at various levels. They will be stronger in their claims and to obtain for the provinces 20220-6964
Canadian Flag
that greater source of revenue they need to meet the priority needs of education at the present time. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


Pauline Jewett: Question, question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do not have more time at my disposal to discuss a matter which is of interest to Canadians all across the country.
I might say that I support this bill but, on the other hand, I should like to ask a few questions to clear up some minor points which seem to be obscure in the bill itself. Those points might be included in the bill, but when I read it I did not see them. Therefore, I should like to have further explanations on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to interrupt my observations, but I must point out to you that it is six o'clock.


Pauline Jewett: Filibuster.


Gilles Grégoire: Well, you speak about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; the hour for private members' business has expired.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the sixth report of the special committee on the Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in.
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: We
have now reached a point at which we must consider whether or not the report which has been presented by the flag committee should be concurred in.
Surely, before any vote is taken in this connection we should be told where the

Canadian Flag
government stands on that report and on the flag design presented by that committee tor adoption. The last occasion on which we were provided with information by the government as to its stand on a flag design was when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) spoke in this house in favour of a three maple leaf design on a white background with blue borders. That was not the design which is proposed by the committee for adoption. It was not the flag design supported by the majority of the members of that committee. And certainly there is no assurance, and none has been given to this house, that the design to be selected by the government if the report of the flag committee is adopted is the design which the majority of that committee indicated they preferred.
Still further, we have been given no reasons by the government to explain the silence of its supporters with regard to the design recommended by the majority of the members on the flag committee. We should know the reasons why the government thinks differently today about what is desirable in a flag design-why its opinions are not the same as they were when the Prime Minister told us why he considered that the flag which should be flying from the flagpoles of this nation should have three maple leaves on a white background with blue borders. We should certainly be told why the Prime Minister believes today that a flag with one maple leaf on a white background with red borders is representative of Canada as a nation and acceptable to its people.
In addition, we would like to hear the views of various other members of the Liberal party. They should tell us why they feel today that this particular flag ought to be adopted, when not so very long ago they were telling us that a flag with three maple leaves was the only possible flag for Canada and indicating what it represented in the way of history and tradition.
I feel we should have the benefit of the views of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) who is deputy leader of the party *opposite and its chief spokesman for the province of Quebec. We should know why he feels today that a red bordered flag is more appropriate than the Pearson pennant which he embraced so readily when it was proposed by the Prime Minister.
Without doubt we should hear the views of the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne), the man charged with the responsibility of caring for our history and traditions, the

man who is the guardian of all that is traditional in this nation. He should tell us why he feels we should embrace this one maple leaf flag which is now proposed.
We should hear, also, from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay). After all, is he not the man who must take responsibility for removing from the citizenship courts of this nation the picture of our Queen? Let him tell us what flag he feels should be placed in these citizenship courts as a symbol of our past history and traditions.
I suggest to hon. members opposite that they get out of their love seats and stand up and explain why we should now embrace a flag design which differs in such a marked way from the one they told us only a few months ago was the only flag for this Canadian nation.
In this regard I should like to read a short letter which appeared in the Yarmouth Herald, Nova Scotia, on September 2. It states:
If one takes a British red ensign and emblazons upon it the distinctive arms of Canada it still remains a foreign flag.
But, if one takes the national flag of Peru and emblazons upon it a maple leaf-the leaf of a tree by no means distinctively Canadian, and of which there are several different varieties across the country-
And, I may add, a leaf which does not appear in some provinces of this country:
-it immediately becomes a distinctive Canadian flag, and not foreign at all.
Being neither British nor Peruvian in origin, my mind is not closed to an explanation of this piece of baffling wizardry. But I am, at the moment, completely confused.
Yours truly,
Robert B. Blauveldt
I may say to that gentleman, he is not the only one in this nation who is confused; indeed there are many in this House of Commons, including myself, who become completely confused when they watch the footwork of this government when it comes to the means of determining what should be the flag of this nation. Not only are they unwilling to accept a flag which contains in it symbols of our past history and tradition, but they are unwilling even to provide themselves with reasons for now shifting, if they are, from a three maple leaf design to a one maple leaf design. They tell us that we should vote. What are we to vote for? Do we know what this government will do when the flag committee report is adopted by this house- if it is? Have we any assurance that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) will not then

pass an order in council indicating that the three maple leaf design shall be the flag of our nation, which is his design?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The report is there.


Robert Carman Coates: "The report is there", my hon. friend says. What guarantee have we that this report will be enacted in any way? Many reports have been adopted by this house with regard to which governments have taken absolutely no action. How do we know this is not going to be the case in this instance? How do we know what design the government will decide upon? Certainly there used to be a leader of the Liberal party who looked into crystal balls and came up with decisions. Maybe that is all right for Liberals, but Conservatives want facts. We want to know where these various ministers stand with regard to the flag design they are eventually going to foist upon this Canadian nation, a design which has no association with our past in any way, shape or form.
There are many implications in the report of the flag committee. We demand an explanation from this government as to what it is going to do about the report, and how it is going to do it, before the house can look forward to our acceptance of this report. We have noticed in the past, and in the recent past, that the Prime Minister sometimes likes to find himself in other places when questions should be answered in this house. In the past we have been put in a position where we could not secure the answer from the Prime Minister, when he found it best to be somewhere else in this nation. But this is not going to be the case with regard to the report of the flag committee that is before the house at this time, and we will get answers to the questions we are asking now or this report will not receive the concurrence necessary for it to be enacted in this house-and it is just as simple as that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: This arrogant silence we have had to contend with from this arrogant government for too long now, on this matter of vital importance affecting every Canadian in every part of this nation, is not going to continue if there is to be any hope by this government of having the report of the flag committee accepted, even on a division. Certainly if the government desire the degree of unity that they talk about so often in this
Canadian Flag
house, I suggest to them that the Prime Minister of this nation come into the house and indicate to us that they are willing to accept a flag design which has contained in it symbols of our past, of the history and tradition of the founding races of this nation. I suggest that he indicate that he does not want a near-Peruvian flag as the national flag of this country, that he saw some merit in the great speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in this house today, that there is real merit in the stand that has been taken in this house by the official opposition in regard to- [Translation]


Mr. Rondeau:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to bring to your attention the fact that from the outset of his remarks, the hon. member who now has the floor, has not addressed the Chair once. Since he has very few interesting things to tell we would ask him at least to address the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, that is the inconsequential type of interruption that has been forthcoming from that quarter of the house. It should be ignored because it has absolutely no merit, and there are no manners associated with it either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: Every time a member rises in this house and starts to talk about history and tradition we hear from those who have no desire to continue the past history and tradition of this nation; they go blabbering on with inconsequential interjections, unwilling to listen to reason, unwilling to listen to anything; willing only to force their will on the Canadian nation and blot out- [Translation]


Lucien Plourde: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
If the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) wants to vent his spleen on some of his colleagues, let him not turn toward the members at the other end of the house. We called order simply because he was addressing the members of the house instead of the Chair, as he should do. He has not been addressing the Chair for exactly three minutes and he is talking about the point of order made by the hon. member who rose before me.
11016	HOUSE OF
Canadian Flag


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I would ask the hon. member who has the floor please not to invite the type of points of order which we have been getting over the past few minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. It is no use commenting on points of order made by other hon. members, once the Chair has ruled that a point of order is not in order. Would the hon. member please proceed.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling but I can only say that it is a cause of some irritation to a speaker when members such as the hon. member who has just taken his seat-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hon. member should realize that the Chair has taken that into consideration, and that is why I am inviting him to resume his speech.


Gilles Grégoire: Question.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that as long as I speak about the matters which I feel must be involved in a flag design for it to be acceptable to me, there will continue to be interruptions from those who do not wish to see the symbols of our past represented in the design of a flag to which they can bow down and adhere.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think one could at least say this about the flag design which was embraced by the government last May, that it could be anchored to a degree to events which had occurred in our past. This was the main argument of the Prime Minister when he proposed this design and gave his reasons for adopting it when he spoke in May. But surely we have a far different situation today, for we have a flag design proposed which is completely new, completely devoid of any associations with our past, with no associations with the traditions of this nation or with the fact that we have been a nation for 97 years. This is a flag that would probably be most suitable for a new nation on the continent of Africa, a nation which is emerging, having been given its democratic rights as of now. But how ridiculous it is that a country which is 97 years of age is proposing to adopt a flag design that is so similar to the flag of Peru that the only difference is that one has its coat of arms in the centre and the other has a maple leaf.


John Ross Matheson: That is not true.


Robert Carman Coates: I hear "That is not true" from the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson). Let the hon. member for Leeds stand on his feet and say whatever he wants about his love story, or whatever it is he wants to speak about, but let him do it in his own time and not mine.


John Ross Matheson: Would the hon. member permit a question on this matter. Would he kindly tell this house, having made that statement, the proportion of red-white-red on the Peruvian flag compared with the recommended flag; and would he also tell us all the colours which are involved in both these flags? Because he is not telling the truth.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might have been the father of the other flag, but if he is the father of this one it is illegitimate all the way. Because unless you become a mathematician or an upholsterer or a dress designer or a furniture dealer there is absolutely no way to associate this flag with any facet of Canada's past, and indeed it bodes ill for Canada's future if this is where we are going in the matter of selecting a flag design which is supposed to be representative of a nation 97 years old, and a good many hundreds years of age in development.
Surely we in this house are correct in demanding from the Prime Minister and the other ministers I have already named an explanation as to how we are going to have a distinctive flag, one which is representative of something. If Canadians have been shocked up to now by what this government has been trying to do to arrive at a flag design, it is nothing in comparison with the shock they are going to feel when they see this flag flying from the flagpoles of the nation. That is when the shock treatment will really set in-when the people see this meaningless flag flying from the flagpoles of the nation, having replaced the beautiful flag which today flies from the peace tower and from every other flagpole across the country.
We have not yet arrived, Mr. Speaker, at a position where we in this house can take a vote on the flag committee's report; and we will not arrive at that position until the Prime Minister is ready to come into this house and explain why he, in the words of the hon. member for Leeds, loves this flag today when his love affairs with the last one was constant only until the flag committee was set up.


Mr.   Barnell@: Would the hon. member permit a question. Would he be prepared to give his assurance to the house that if the Prime Minister does come in and make a speech on the flag we can then proceed to have a vote on the flag committee's report?


Robert Carman Coates: I thank the hon. member for giving me this degree of control over the Progressive Conservative party, which allows me to make decisions for every member therein. Unfortunately I am not in a position to have that type of control; nor do I want it. As a matter of fact, I believe that the action of the members of this party, following a definitive explanation by the government as to what it will do about the new flag once a vote has taken place on this motion, will indicate the position taken by this party in respect of the expected order in council. A vote having taken place in respect of the motion now before us will lead to some recommendation being made to the other place. One must hope that the honourable gentlemen of that place will have some consideration for the feelings, as they have been expressed, of the people of this country. Surely no responsible government would wish to shirk its responsibility in this regard.
Is it too much to ask the Prime Minister to indicate to this nation why he feels there should be a new and distinctive Canadian flag? After all, he is the man who has placed this House of Commons in the position where it has been for months, considering this question. Surely we can expect that the Prime Minister will stand and abide by a vote on the recommendation of the special committee on a Canadian flag, yet we have heard little or nothing from his supporters about that recommendation. Surely it is time that we should hear from the treasury benches as to how they feel about a distinctive and different Canadian flag. Surely we should hear from those individuals who voted for this proposed design in the committee and proposed the committee report now before us. Surely this is the time when we should hear from the ministers of the crown, who are responsible for the direction of this country. What can we expect from this government in the way of direction? Surely they consider themselves responsible to the people of Canada.
The government which now proposes that we adopt this flag is the same government which proposed last June that we adopt the flag with the three maple leaf design. At that time the suggestion was made that that
Canadian Flag
design was the one most acceptable to Canadian people. That was the government's statement. They have now changed their minds. If they And they must change their minds, and they are not sure, as is obvious, which flag is the flag to be adopted by this nation, surely they must realize that the people of this country should be given a choice.
The government now urging the adoption of the flag, as set out in the motion we are now discussing, is the same government which has changed its mind about the flag and about the time the flag must be adopted. Their argument seems to be that we should adopt the flag advocated by the majority of their members.
As a result of this attitude we have been subjected to a tortuous debate. We have been held responsible for this debate because we will not agree that the presently proposed design, recommended by the committee, is the most acceptable to the people of Canada. We do not intend to allow the House of Commons to be placed in a position of voting for or against something which is favoured only by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and others who occupy government benches. Those gentlemen feel that the proposed design is the one acceptable in this country. Those are the same ministers who favoured and supported the three red maple leaves design as presented by the Prime Minister. Perhaps they were impressed with that design because it was proffered by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, we are anxious to hear from the Prime Minister and his supporters as to their feelings in support of the flag proposed by the committee report now before us for concurrence. I am sure they could satisfy their desires at an earlier date if they produce answers to the many questions which have been asked. Surely they cannot expect overwhelming support for their proposal, or any support at all, when they, at the same time, continue their attitude of complete silence, which has been apparent since the committee's recommendation was presented to this house.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be in reference to the fact that we have not heard from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) about this report from the flag committee, which was set up by this House of Commons. This is not a majority report, in view of the fact that almost one third of the members voted against it. It is very strange, indeed, that the Prime Minister

Canadian Flag
of this country has offered little or no support for the recommendation proposed by a committee made up of members, the majority of whom are his supporters. Surely his silence is an indication of childishness and petulence, and an apparent display of contempt for parliament. This attitude is an example of the great disregard for the wishes of the people that this government has adopted. Surely it is only a matter of common courtesy on the part of the Prime Minister of this country to stand in his place and give us some indication of his reason for asking concurrence in the report of a committee of this House of Commons.
This issue has been alluded to as one of the most important measures to come before this house in a great number of years. No one in Canada will dispute the fact, whether they want a change of flag, or not. Surely, in view of that fact, the Prime Minister of this country should stand in his place and answer the questions asked by the members of the house. I think tonight of the many times during my school days when I had the task of putting the union jack on the rope and hoisting it on the flag pole. I think also of the action taken in later years by the government of Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King which gave to Canada a new flag in the form of the red ensign. There is a lot of history throughout those years and a lot of that history was Liberal history. There is no question in so far as that is concerned.
Earlier in the day when I listened to the Prime Minister count the number of speeches that have been made on this question I thought of the questions that are going unanswered in this country today and I could not help but think that he would have been better employed inquiring into other activities that certainly interest Canadians and must interest him as the chief administrator of the country. The changing of a flag is not a simple measure such as a money bill or many of the other changes that parliament makes in statutes. In my view it is a part of the constitutional set-up of the country and I am surprised that throughout this debate very little attention has been given to it by the chief guardian of the constitution of the country, the Prime Minister himself. In saying that, I know he has to be in other places at times. He has many duties; but the Prime Minister of this country has no duty that is greater than his duty to sit in his seat in the House of Commons when an important measure is under consideration, and we had hoped that we would have seen him more frequently.
[Mr. Nasserden.l
I think too tonight of the traditions of this country. I am in the unhappy or happy position, whichever way you want to look at it, of not having either a French or English background. I believe that most Canadians of my generation with a background not altogether dissimilar to mine want no part of the feuds that have been a part of the history of this country. It may be said by some, and I believe this is the argument of the Prime Minister, that perhaps because of these feuds, these things that have happened in the past, there should be no reference to the founding elements of this nation in the new flag. But as one of those who have never been a part of either of the two founding elements of the nation I cannot help but feel that we in this parliament today are in much the same position a firm is that decides to change its name, or when an organization decides to make a new beginning. But I ask you, sir, in all sincerity, how can a nation make a new beginning without some of the foundations upon which it was originally built?
When I look at the recommendation that has been made to parliament by the committee and consider the action that was taken by the Liberal members of the committee, I must say that, while I do not want to reflect on them, the decision taken by them in the committee indicates to me that they must not have been consulted when the Prime Minister brought in his three leaf design in the first place. It may have been his design, but the design that was endorsed by the Liberal members of the committee was another design altogether, and the outstanding fact to be remembered in this whole matter is that not a single Liberal member of that committee went to bat for the Prime Minister's design.
The thing that bothers me about this whole matter is this. We have heard a great deal of talk about unity among those who sit on the benches opposite, unity among the members of the government opposite and the unity they have given this nation, but when it came to supporting the design they had supported earlier in the house when it was brought forward by the Prime Minister the Liberal members of that committee did not give evidence of that unity. How can they ever explain the inconsistency of their position? Is that not the reason why the Prime Minister's seat is empty tonight? He cannot come into the House of Commons tonight and explain away the inconsistency of that position. That is why hon. members opposite are

very silent so far as that particular matter is concerned.
There are those in the house who have referred to the union jack as a foreign flag. They have referred to the fact that the fleur-de-lis is something foreign.


Mr. Caron:: Yes.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) says "yes".


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes.


Edward Nasserden: And he repeats himself. But when I go into the province of Quebec what do I see? I see the fleur-de-lis flying from the flag poles.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I never liked it.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. member for Hull says he never liked it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: No.


Edward Nasserden: And he agrees again. But when I go into the province of Quebec I see the fleur-de-lis. When the people there have their parades you see the fleur-de-lis. Those of us who come from other than English or French stock are not ashamed that the French were a part of the founding elements of this nation, or that the English were part of the founding elements of this nation. That is one of the reasons we would like to see on the Canadian flag not only the union jack but also the fleur-de-lis.
I cannot imagine the guardian of our constitution, who after all is the Prime Minister of our country, countenancing an action that would wipe out in one fell swoop all of the history of this country. What complicates the whole matter is that from those Liberals who sit behind him in the house we have had during the debate so far this wonderful show of unity. There has just been one dissenting voice from all those on the benches across the way. Is that not an outstanding fact, one to be noted by history and one to be noted by the people in every part of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Edward Nasserden: I would be glad to answer any questions.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, those are easy questions to answer. It will not be so easy for those who ask these questions when they go back to the electorate of this country in the election that will follow. The answer to some of these 20220-697
Canadian Flag
questions is to be found in the almost quarter of a million views that have been transmitted either individually or collectively to the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet by means of telegrams, petitions, letters and designs that have been submitted from every part of Canada. This government-


Gilles Grégoire: Name them.


Edward Nasserden: -this careless Prime Minister, says this flag will be adopted in the name of national unity. How can there be the unity necessary when so many people have taken the trouble to write letters, send telegrams, sign petitions or submit designs? I imagine, in addition, that there have been those who have individually attempted to influence members on the other side of the house, just as they have tried to influence members on this side of the house on this important matter.
I hold no brief for any particular design tonight, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that I believe this is one of the saddest days in Canada's history. We see the Prime Minister's empty seat following the vote on the amendment and we know, whether through design or carelessness, the Prime Minister of this country is allowing this debate to continue without his intervention to shed some light on what the government proposes to do following concurrence in the report. I think thousands and thousands of people tonight will be wondering what manner of parliament we have in Ottawa.


Gilles Grégoire: We want the names.


Edward Nasserden: Someone says, "We want the names". They are the unnamed Canadians-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: They are the unnamed Canadians who cannot sit in this House of Commons because they have sent others here to represent them. An hon. gentleman opposite made an interjection which I am not going to answer. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the people across Canada expect the Prime Minister of this country to give more attention to a matter such as this than he has shown in this cavalier dismissal of his responsibilities, this abdication of his responsibilities as the guardian of the constitution. He should give the opposition and the house some indication of the course the government intends to follow after concurrence in this report.
I do not wish to say any more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Canadian Flag


Edward Nasserden: After all that applause, I think I may continue for a while. I see the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) smiling. He is in a genial mood tonight. He was one of the two cabinet ministers, I believe, who took part in this debate. Surely tonight, in that expansive mood, when he is in a position so close to the Prime Minister that he must know what is going to happen, he will want the rest of us to know as well. I do not want to say anything more in that regard. I see the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau).


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, does the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Boutin) have a question?


Pierre-André Boutin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: What is your point of order?


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, since everybody seems happy to see the smile which brightens up the face of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), why not suggest to the house that his smile be substituted for the maple leaf, on the distinctive flag?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) has the floor.


Edward Nasserden: I want to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is the type of point of order that we have had throughout this debate, or so-called point of order. It gives us some indication of the seriousness with which hon. gentlemen opposite have taken this whole matter. I am not going to try to reply to it at all.
There are one or two things I want to say about the flag of Canada before I do conclude my remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: This is the fourth time you have concluded.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, when one has such an attentive audience it is difficult to conclude. I do want to say, in all seriousness that a Canadian flag with a red maple leaf in the centre, in my opinion, will not inspire that devotion from the people of Quebec that all of us would like to see. I say that because I believe the people of Quebec would rather

see a green or gold maple leaf in that arrangement. I may be mistaken about this, but that is what I believe as a result of the observations I have been able to make during the last four or five years when I have been in that province. I want to say this, too-


Gilles Grégoire: In conclusion.


Edward Nasserden: I regret that there have been all these interruptions which have made my remarks such a hodge-podge. I see hon. gentlemen opposite laughing. This is hardly the time when hon. gentlemen opposite should be laughing because, after all there is a lot more hangs on the decision that is about to be made in the House of Commons once a vote is called than hon. members realize at the moment.
When you are planning to change the symbol of a nation as is envisaged by the present government it ill becomes those on the government benches who have a majority in the House of Commons, with the assistance they receive from the other parties, to treat as lightly as they do the whole matter under discussion.
I wish to say in conclusion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I am
sure hon. members would like the hon. member for Rosthern to bring his speech to a happy conclusion.


Edward Nasserden: There can be no happy conclusion in a debate such as this when the Prime Minister is not in his seat.


Frank John William Fane: Mr. Speaker, I think I should first ask you to have a bale of thistles brought in so hon. members on my far left will have something to keep them busy while I am speaking. I am amazed that tonight of all nights, after one of saddest days we have experienced in Canada, no one has come forward on behalf of the government to make a statement on the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to a new national flag.
Certainly a semblance of a flag was picked out by the committee that worked on it, but what real Canadian in Canada wants a flag which is not Canadian and which is not distinctive, but which is the flag of some other country-except that it bears a dead maple leaf in the middle in place of the coat of arms of that country?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Nonsense.


Frank John William Fane: The flag of Peru. Look at the list of flags. We are not getting a distinctive flag, if this is the flag the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) intends to impose on us. In any case, he should be here. He should make a statement telling us exactly what we can expect and what we shall be voting for when we vote on this motion which is now before the house.
I for one am not prepared to accept statements by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) as the spokesman for the government. I think the Prime Minister himself should make a statement and, failing him, a senior cabinet minister on the front bench whom he trusts, or should trust. If the right hon. gentleman feels it will compromise him to tell the people of Canada what national flag we are to have, why can we not hear from one of his senior colleagues instead of from a backbencher sitting in the front row over there, one who sets himself up as a heraldic expert?
One cannot expect anything better from this government, however. They are afraid to get up and speak. All except three have been afraid to rise during the last part of this debate. Not a cabinet minister spoke. That certainly shows disrespect of and disregard for the feelings of millions of Canadians across this country. Who is pushing them? Who is blackmailing the Prime Minister? Who is blackmailing the government? Why do they not have enough intestinal fortitude to get up and make statements in this house? They are extremely vocal at other times; ministers have been travelling all over this country of ours making speeches.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am wondering
whether the remarks of the hon. member are really relevant to the resolution before the house. At the moment it is a motion for the adoption of the sixth report of the special committee on the Canadian flag. It seems to me that arguments advanced by hon. members should be in favour of or against the adoption of the report, and I should like the hon. member to refer his remarks to the subject matter of the discussion.


Frank John William Fane: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I think any remarks I have made were very relevant to the debate. However, if you want to know right now exactly how I feel on the flag which has been picked out for us, let me say I feel it is not adequate. I am not in favour of its being the flag of Canada and I never will be. I served in two wars and I was proud to fight under the flag we had; and I wonder how many of the two or three 20220-6971
Canadian Flag
million ex-service men and women in this country would be proud to serve under the travesty of a national flag which has been presented to us today. We may have to call it our national flag but believe me I am one who is most unwilling to accept it.


An hon. Member:: And you represent how many?


Frank John William Fane: I represent, as I told the house earlier, people of 40 different national origins and I speak as one who received an over-all majority in the last election. Anyway, I want to say that the flag which the committee picked out is not distinctively Canadian. It has a red maple leaf on it. Maple leaves only turn red when they are dead. If there is to be a maple leaf on the Canadian flag it should be a green maple leaf to show the surging life of this nation. As I said the other day, Canada is a growing country, a country which in the course of a few years will be greatest country in the world. We shall be the leader of the nations as, today, the nation to the south of us is the leader of the nations. I predict that for Canada, and I have lived here for many years. I wonder now, as I have wondered for quite some time-in fact, ever since we began debating the choice of the flag committee-how the Liberal members on that committee can reconcile their choice of a flag with that of their Prime Minister. What must the Prime Minister feel like when every one of the Liberal members on that committee repudiated his choice of a flag.


Gilles Grégoire: Oh, that has been said.


Frank John William Fane: That is something that is beyond understanding. It is beyond my understanding, at least, and if it is beyond my understanding it is beyond the understanding of a great many other people. What does the Prime Minister think of that? Is he going to resign because his appointees on that committee turned him down? There were seven of them. They turned him down to a man and woman, every one of them. I believe that is a slap in the face for the Prime Minister whom they claim to love so much.


An hon. Member:: Absence makes the heart grow fonder; they certainly must love him.


Frank John William Fane: This flag is supposed to create unity in our nation. I think the people who believe that are very blind. This flag will not create unity, and there is no other way to look at it.


Auguste Choquette: Your party is divided, that's for sure.

Canadian Flag


Frank John William Fane: What about yours? I think my hon. friend from Lotbiniere should join his pals down in the corner and eat thistles with ihem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank John William Fane: Why, Mr. Speaker, they get so impatient that they begrudge me even a drink of water. As I was saying, the unity of Canada is something for which everybody in Canada should strive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank John William Fane: I am very glad to have approval from all quarters of the house for that statement, because I think everybody should be prepared for a little give and take if it will provide the unity that is required in this country. All the give should not be-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question?


Frank John William Fane: You sit down, and I will answer a question when I have finished.


Gilles Grégoire: Then I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is rising on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Actually, it is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; I would like to call it a question of privilege. Could the hon. member sometimes change the tone of his voice a little?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. MacEwan:: If you had half the guts that man has, you wouldn't say that.


An hon. Member:: More fascist behaviour.


Frank John William Fane: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that the unity of Canada is something that is paramount in this country of ours and there should be no question about that. Why cannot everybody get together properly? I said there must be give and take on all sides, from all parts. It should not be expected that one side will do all the giving and the other all the taking. The sacrifice has to be equal, and until people are prepared to make an equal sacrifice in this country Canada can never hope to be united. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in the constituency from which I come the people are united. I have told the house there are people of 40 different national origins there, and we are united.
[Mr. Choquette.l
We figure that we are Canadians. We have intermarried; we have joined together. Our customs were all different, but we have joined together and made one culture in the area in which I live. Why cannot Canada as a whole, as a nation, do that? It is just a case of listening to some mountebanks, demagogues who would endeavour to destroy our nation. Whether they have taken the cue from people within this country or from without, I do not know; but I hope to heaven it did not originate within this country. It must be from without, and somebody fell for a smooth, fast talker. That is where the difficulty started in this country.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I stand for unity in this country and I will never stir up national animosity in any part of Canada. Personally I will never do that; I never have and I never will. If I can display feelings like that, why cannot all the people in this parliament get together and arrive at a proper flag-not just a flag, any old thing, because any old rag just will not do for this nation of Canada, I assure you, Mr. Speaker. A flag should provide unity. If we can get some togetherness, some give and take on all sides, from all parties, we would be a lot better off. Then we might get together and develop a flag-but not this one. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is how the people I represent feel also. Again I must say that it is an insult to parliament, it is an insult to the people of Canada that the Prime Minister has not seen fit to take part in this debate. Preferably he should have started the debate off, but he should come into the house and make a statement as to what he thinks about it. Is he scared that his party will repudiate him again? They should not, if he does that.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the provinces in our nation have spoken out definitely and decisively against this flag. So far as my area is concerned my constituents wish me to support the red ensign. As I have remarked several times before, we are prepared to give up part of our red ensign. We would wish to have some of the symbols of our heritage, the heritage of Canada, on our flag. This is a very serious time in the life of our nation and I think the Prime Minister should be here to make his statement.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be in this chamber considerable hurry to get along with the business of choosing a national flag. This

is one of the most important matters that the parliament of Canada has ever been called upon to decide. I have pleaded before, and I do so again, that we should not be in such a hurry to take action which we or those who come after us have reason to regret. A flag is the symbol of a nation. It becomes very important to the people of a nation. Therefore we should take all the time that is necessary. Neither time, effort nor expense should be permitted to stand in the way of choosing a national flag which will tend to promote national unity in the country rather than discord.
This afternoon we disposed of one question and we are now speaking to the main motion for concurrence in the recommendation made by the committee that we adopt the flag with the red bars at the ends and with a red maple leaf between those bars. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked what comes next. Is the government, he asked, willing to accept this recommendation of the committee? No answer has been given to that question. The government have not put themselves on record as to whether they are willing to accept the committee's recommendation in the way of a flag. Then again, what procedure will be used if and when the house does adopt the recommendation of the committee? How will the house proceed to give effect to the committee's recommendation?
Another question which was asked was: What becomes of the two resolutions now on the order paper numbered 44A and 44B? The first of these was the one placed on the order paper by the government-by the Prime Minister-recommending that this house adopt the three maple leaf design. What happens to this resolution? Resolution 44B, also put on the order paper by the Prime Minister, calls for the house to adopt the union jack as the commonwealth flag or as the flag of the empire. Then there is another resolution, No. 45, dealing with a related topic, the national anthem. These are questions which I believe this house has a right to have answered before we come to a vote on this matter. Surely it is not too much to ask that the Prime Minister or some member of his government should undertake to satisfy the house and make the position of the government clear in regard to these questions.
The party to which I have the honour to belong, in common with all other parties in the house, is doing, I believe, whatever it can to promote national unity in this country. Opinions may differ as to how national unity can best be promoted. There are honest
Canadian Flag
differences of opinion regarding the procedure which should be adopted with this end in view. Our party has taken the stand that for the government to impose a flag by a vote of this house is not the best way to promote national unity. We have the right to present our view and to urge our view upon all hon. members of the house. We wish national unity: all parties are working for national unity. How can we have national unity, however, without a reasonable compromise between the two elements in our population which are causing the disputation and trouble at this time?
Compromise, Mr. Speaker, presupposes a giving on both sides. The English speaking people in this country wish to retain on our national flag some symbols of our past heritage. But we are quite prepared to accord the French speaking people in this country a similar privilege-that they should have some symbolism of their past history also on our national flag.
I understand the feelings of our friends. They are quite willing to forgo any symbolism of our French heritage in Canada provided they can, at the same time, eliminate all the symbolism of the British heritage in connection with our country from our flag. The English speaking people are not prepared to accept that arrangement entirely, but they are quite prepared, as far as I have been able to learn, to compromise.
I sent out 4,000 questionnaires to the people in my area. I blanketed the area which was covered and sent the questionnaire to every family within that area. I have received something in the neighbourhood of 1,000 replies, of which 50 per cent have expressed favour for the retention of the red ensign. About 40 per cent expressed favour for that flag which has no symbolism of the past, namely the three maple leaf design proposed by the Prime Minister.
The significant fact is this. The majority of supporters of the red ensign are willing to accept a compromise. If our French speaking colleagues in this country were willing also to accept a compromise, I am sure there would be no difficulty in selecting a national flag. Our French speaking colleagues have a right to express their opinions, feelings and allegiances, but I do feel that they have not shown a willingness, as have the English speaking people, to accept a compromise. Surely that is what we need-a compromise. We must consider both sides. If we can select a flag acceptable to both our founding

Canadian Flag
races, I am sure that every other ethnic group will also accept that choice.
While referring to the two founding races, perhaps I should state that I believe most of us have forgotten that the two original founding races of this country were the Indians and Eskimos. The flag now being proposed does not embody any symbolism of those two races. What consideration has been given in the design of the proposed flag to Canadians who have come to this country in the last 97 years? Surely it is not too much to ask that the acceptable Canadian flag be a compromise of the feelings not only of the two founding races of this country, but of the feelings of the many thousands of Canadians from other countries.
Surely it is not too much to ask that we take our time and try to select a suitable design. I cannot understand why we should hurry in our selection of the Canadian national flag. Pressure has been put upon us ever since the flag issue was brought before us so many months ago. Our whole legislative program has been built around the flag issue. In fact, since the throne speech our debate and legislative consideration has been associated with the flag issue. We talked ourselves through both an Easter and summer recess. Now, in anticipation of a Christmas recess, none of us knows what to expect. What will happen? Who can give the answer? It is a good thing that we passed legislation creating nine statutory holidays per year. Thank goodness we can at least count on those.
The special committee on a Canadian flag recommended something which I do not feel is an honest and genuine compromise. It does not embody any symbols of our past. I give credit to the members of that committee for doing their best under these highly emotionally charged circumstances. However, in blindness to public opinion, they have brought forward something without historical symbolism, without recognition of the contributions of the two founding races, and without recognition of the feelings of the majority of the Canadian people, and for those reasons I cannot accept the committee's recommendation. I must, therefore, in all conscience, vote against the committee's choice.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that some genuine action toward compromise should take place. I think some compromise should be adopted which I can take to my constituents in Middlesex West and say: We could not retain the red ensign, but at least 75 per cent of

the supporters of the red ensign have accepted this compromise, and we recommend that this compromise be accepted. As the situation now stands, I can only say to those members of my constituency who are Legion supporters that the recommendation of this special committee of the House of Commons is not acceptable on the grounds that it does not incorporate any symbols emblematic of our past history and traditions. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker.
The government is seized with the responsibility of adopting measures supported by the majority of the people of Canada. The opposition must criticize, constructively, and has done so. It has suggested that we compromise by holding a plebiscite. Surely the government, in light of all the criticism and objection about this flag procedure, should be prepared to withdraw this resolution and send the question back to the special committee, or perhaps to a new joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. Let us make a new effort to solve the flag issue. There is no hurry to adopt a new flag. We are not now going to have a flag by Christmas, even though this recommendation is adopted, and provided the Senate lives up to its usual record for speed. Let us try again in a committee to come to some compromise. Perhaps a committee made up of members of the Senate and members of the House of Commons could bring in some new ideas, so that we could adopt a flag which is, or will be genuinely accepted by the Canadian people. Perhaps as a result of the establishment of such a committee a compromise could be acceptable to both English and French speaking Canadians. Perhaps then there would be no losers or winners on the flag issue, but acceptance of a flag which would promote national unity rather than bitterness in the eyes of Canadians throughout this nation.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to touch on one other situation, namely that this government does not have a mandate from the people of Canada on the subject of a Canadian flag. It is a fact that the government is a minority government, but I do not hold that against them. They are doing the best they can. We know they have a big majority in the house on the flag issue and we know they have been well supported in the house during the 20 months they have been in office. But there was no mention in our area of a flag without symbolism of our past being imposed on the people of Canada during either of the last two election campaigns. This may have been an issue in some places. I believe the hon. mem-



XO. 1964

[Stage Direction]
ber for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said it was the issue upon which he and his colleagues were elected, or at least one of the main planks in their platform. It was not a plank in any platform in our area and for that reason partly I say that the government did not have a clear mandate from the people of Canada to change our flag.
The promises made in our area included a national pension plan which involved an increase in old age pensions out of the first contributions made to the plan, an increase in old age pensions without any increase in taxation, which we will admit had a very attractive sound to the people. Then there was the promise in regard to wheat. We were to have $3 wheat on the prairies. This was a very attractive plank in their platform. We were to have a support price of $2.40 for soybeans in southwestern Ontario.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. It may be that the hon. member's comments are relevant to the motion now before the house but that is not readily apparent to the Chair. I would ask the hon. member if there is any way that these comments and remarks can be related to the motion now under consideration.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out that to my mind the government has no clear mandate to impose a flag on the people of Canada. I was outlining the problems and issues that were a part of the election campaign in our area and I was going to make the point that the flag was not one of those problems and issues in our part of the country, but these other things were. All of the kinks were to be taken out of the Department of National Defence and out of government administration in general. We were to have a greater measure of world peace. The country was to come closer to Utopia than ever before, but there was no mention of the flag issue.
With the government having no mandate to impose a flag, the only suggestion I can make is that unless the government can find some way of approaching this problem other than simply imposing a flag by a vote of the house, unless we can set up a new committee of the Senate and the House of Commons or a new committee of the house alone and keep on trying to find a satisfactory design, then I think the only fair thing for the government to do is to withhold the imposition of a flag until they get a new mandate from the people of Canada. I think
Canadian Flag
they probably need a new mandate in other respects as well. I think the whole policy envisaged by the government aimed at creating national unity, of which the flag is only one part-the opting out provision, the rewriting of our constitution, the British North America Act-all of these things together with the imposition of a new flag should be taken again before the people so that the people may have a chance to express their confidence or lack of confidence in the government. We need an election before a flag is imposed by a vote of the house.
The contract of confederation was entered into in 1867. That is 97 years ago, and for 97 years it has worked and served Canada. Some will say not well; some will say that it has served us well. But I should like to take the house back over the years to those days when confederation was under consideration and to place on the record the feelings of the leaders of the two parties then, including the leader of French Canada at that time. The Conservative leader, of course, was Sir John A. Macdonald. His attitude toward the empire, toward Canada and toward the flag is well known. In 1884 he spoke in Toronto on the future of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is perhaps the greatest monument to his courage and resolution. These words of his are to be found on page 36 of J. Pope's "Flag of Canada" published in 1912. These were the words of Sir John A. Macdonald:
This will be 10 days from London-
He is speaking of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
-to the new city of Vancouver on the Pacific coast. The run across the Pacific to Yokohama may be made in 14 days; the whole trip will thus be made in 24 days from London to Yokohama, a saving in time of at least 20 days over the route via Gibraltar and the Suez canal. The English colony of Hong Kong may be reached by the Canadian Pacific Railway in less than 30 days from England, or 16 days less than by Gibraltar and the Suez canal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member because his remarks are, of course, of great interest. But it does seem to the Chair that he is straying rather seriously from the matter which he should be considering, the adoption of the sixth report of the special committee on the Canadian flag. Again I say it may be that these quotations are related to the question whether the house should adopt or reject the committee recommendation, but I would suggest to the hon. member that perhaps his

Canadian Flag
remarks should be a little more relevant to
the subject matter.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, these remarks do have a definite relationship inasmuch as they indicate the attitude of the Canadian political leaders in 1867 regarding the flag of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. My very respectful suggestion to the hon. member is that what this house has to consider is the opinions of the political leaders at this time and not as they were in 1867.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: If you will bear with me for one more sentence, I will come to the end of this quotation. These are the words of Sir John A. Macdonald:
During all that time the traveller will never be out of the sound of the British drum and may always have his eyes resting on the union jack.
Now, we come to the attitude, and this is a shorter quotation, Mr. Speaker, of Hon. George Brown, that great Liberal leader in 1867 during the debate on the formation of confederation. This is concerning a flag, and George Brown, that great leader of the reform party was ever a staunch upholder of the union jack. In the course of the confederation debate, he said:
It may be that some among us will live to see the day when, as the result of this measure, a great and powerful people may have grown up on these lands-when the boundless forests all around us shall have given way to smiling fields and thriving towns and when one united government, under the British flag, shall extend from shore to shore.
Again, we have mention of the British flag which in those days was the union jack. Here we have the Conservative party and the Liberal party representatives speaking with no objection to the union jack. Then we come to the opinion of Sir George Etienne Cartier, who in those days was the great French Canadian leader from Quebec. He was equally strong in his devotion to the British flag. This is a report in the Quebec Morning Chronicle of May 23, 1862, and reads as follows:
The vote against the militia bill of 1862 was recorded, as we know, against a measure which was to provide, in a better and more efficient manner, for the defence of the country. We feel, therefore, that we fell in defence of a measure, the passing of which we considered necessary to secure us the full enjoyment of our free political institutions, under the protection of the glorious flag of old England.
Now, there was no dispute in those days when confederation was set up; the flag was acceptable to all elements of the country-to
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.l
the Conservatives, to the Liberals, to the people of Upper Canada and to the people of Lower Canada. There was no feeling whatever, no objection to the use of the union jack. It has only been of late, apparently, that an objection has developed to the use of the union jack. This sentiment may change. There are about 5.5 million people in Quebec and there are about 3.5 million of those people, I believe, who speak no English but speak French only. There are about 10.5 million people in Canada who speak English only. Now, our problem at this time is to get together on a compromise flag, a flag to which all people can subscribe and in the selection of which there will be no winners and no losers.
I have a letter here written by a group of distinguished people which has a distinct bearing on the selection of a national flag. Bits of it have been referred to a number of times but the letter, which is not long, has never been used. There are parts of it which have never been used. This letter is signed by a group of distinguished Canadians such as Dr. D. G. Creighton, professor of history, University of Toronto; Dr. Eugene Forsey, director of research, Canadian Labour Congress. I may say that I called Dr. Forsey just to make sure that this was a genuine letter and that the sentiments expressed in this letter were honest, and the real sentiments of the people concerned. I was assured by Dr. Forsey, when I read him excerpts from this letter, that the letter was genuine and represented the opinions of these people. The other signers are, Mrs. H. A. Dyde, Edmonton; Dr. W. L. Morton, professor of history, University college, University of Manitoba; T. H. B. Symons, president and vice chancellor, Trent University, Peterborough; Jean Palardy, author, film director, Montreal; Dr. Denis Smith, assistant to the president and assistant professor of politics, Trent University, Peterborough; David M. Harley, barrister and solicitor, Toronto; Eric McLean, music critic, Montreal; Walter Pitman, head of the history department, Kenner Collegiate, Peterborough. He used to sit over in one of those seats. Then, there is Dr. Macgregor Parsons, Red Deer, Alberta and Scott Bull Symons, assistant curator in charge of Canadian collections, Royal Ontario museum, Toronto.
This letter was addressed to the Prime Minister under date of May 27, 1964, and it is just as pertinent today as it was then. I quote:

We have thought deeply about the flag issue, and believe it necessary to write this open letter to you as an expression of our common feelings. May we emphasize that we do not speak as political partisans, but only as concerned Canadians representing several parties.
We applaud your decision to seek a distinctive national flag for Canada, and recognize your courage in doing so. We believe, as you do, that the flag should be a source of national unity, and that it should be unmistakably Canadian in character. However, we protest that the single leaf flag is neither of these things. Its only advan-
Canadian Flag tage is that it is innocuous, that it produces tepid approval, mild disapproval, or indifference, and that it can therefore be adopted without any display or strong feeling whatever.


Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member, since it is now ten o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 11, 1964
The house met at 11 a.m.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think when you hear my question of privilege you will find my argument irrefragable. It arises out of a letter written on September 19, 1964 by a minister of the crown. My question of privilege affects my personal responsibilities to my constituency; and when I read the last paragraph of the letter, which as I say was written by a minister of the crown, I think, Mr. Speaker, you will also find it not only affects my responsibility as a member of this house but also the responsibility of any other person serving his constituency as a member of parliament.
This letter was addressed to the Banff advisory council, Banff, Alberta and was written by the minister of northern affairs. I should like to quote from the last two paragraphs. The letter is lengthy and I do not want to take up a lot of time. If any hon. member wants the whole letter read I am prepared to read it, but my question of privilege involves the last two paragraphs, which I am sure the house will find interesting and I trust, Mr. Speaker, you will even find shocking. The second last paragraph reads:
I was most interested in Mr. Woolliams' reference on page 10040 of the debate to my letter to council of November 4. 1964. I am curious to know by what means Mr. Woolliams received a copy of that letter which he has subsequently used for partisan purposes which I do not think are in keeping with the kind of relations which I would like to have with the Banff advisory council.
Now we come to the crux and the meat of it.
If the council would like me to send copies of all my correspondence with them, I would be glad to have that advice from you, and act accordingly.
The last paragraph is what I find shocking, Mr. Speaker, which I say affects my responsibility to my constituency and the responsibility of other members. It reads:
I sincerely hope that Mr. Woolliams' remarks were not requested by the Banff advisory council or by any member of the council.
It is the last sentence with which I come to grips. This is it:
I would hope that the council will conduct its relations directly with me at all times.
What this minister has done on this occasion, and what he did when he met that council, was threaten it. He said "You have to deal with me or I will not consider any of the suggestions made by you". I suggest that is irresponsible and an erosion of the responsibility of any member. This is a shocking letter, and I am sure the Prime Minister is shocked to know that one of his ministers has written in this manner to the people of the constituency of Bow River.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in.
William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, in the very limited time remaining at my disposal I should like to continue the promotion I put forth last night for a genuine compromise flag, which would be something that all Canadians could support, ending this contest without winners or losers.
Reaching a compromise is similar to horse trading. The seller starts with his top price and the buyer starts with his bottom price, and then a step by step process takes place to reach an agreement. After conferring with some of my colleagues I have decided to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mand-ziuk). This amendment is designed to clear away the brush, leaving the way open for a real compromise flag. I move:
That the sixth report of the special committee be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to strike out in paragraph 7 all the words after "Canada" and substitute "be the Canadian red ensign."

Canadian Flag
And that the committee for such purposes be revived.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been moved by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Mandziuk:
That the sixth report of the special committee be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to strike out in paragraph 7, all the words after "Canada" and substitute "be the Canadian red ensign."
And that the committee for such purposes be revived.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will come to the amendment which has just been proposed when I deal with the votes that have already been taken by the committee whose report we are now considering. I believe I am the 71st member of parliament to take part in this discussion. I was the first of 174 speakers on the original flag resolution, and I am the 71st in this second discussion involving the flag recommended in the committee report.
Last evening it was suggested that before a vote is taken the views of the government should be made clear in respect of the committee report. Indeed, the impression seemed to have been created last night that if only the Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of the government, would give his view on this matter we could then go ahead and take a decision. So I am very happy indeed to oblige this morning and I hope the result which was indicated last night will be realized after I have spoken.
The question was asked last night, where does the government stand on this matter? I would point out first, Mr. Speaker, that what we are considering is not a government motion but a motion for concurrence in the report of a committee of this house, a report which is before this house not as a government motion, a report on which every member of this house has the right and the duty to vote as a member in a free vote. It is not, therefore, a question of where the government stands; it is a question of where every member of this house stands.
I am speaking this morning as one member of the house who is Prime Minister. I am speaking for myself, but I am also authorized to state that every member of the government, as a member of the government, supports the recommendation of this committee; and we are very happy indeed to have with us in this support not only members of the Liberal party but also members of opposition 
parties, including front bench members of the official opposition.
I was asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition what steps the government proposes to take if this report of a committee of the house is adopted by parliament. I can assure him, as I assured the house last June in answer to a similar question, which answer appears on page 4319 of Hansard, that if the recommendations in this report are accepted by parliament the government will then take the necessary action to implement those recommendations. The recommendations of the sixth report of the committee provide for a distinctive Canadian flag.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the Prime Minister goes on, may I ask him this question. If parliament concurs in the committee report, what are the plans of the government with regard to the Senate?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Abolish it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I dealt with this question last June, but I am glad to deal with it again. This is not an unreasonable question by my right hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: There have been so many changes since June.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is one respect in which there has been no change since June, and that is the official opposition have prevented a decision being taken on this matter.
If the recommendations of this report are accepted by the House of Commons, they will be considered by the Senate. If they are accepted by the Senate, they become recommendations of parliament and the necessary formal steps will be taken afterward to bring these recommendations into effect. My right hon. friend knows, I think, what those steps are. In any event, I put them forward previously and I will be glad to go into that later.


John George Diefenbaker: Will it be by resolution in the Senate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Actually the formula will be laid down to the house if and when the recommendations are accepted. I would be very happy indeed, if the houses of parliament take positive action in regard to these recommendations, to associate a former prime minister and privy councillor with me in the formal steps that will be later required.
The recommendation of the committee for a Canadian flag was criticized yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in

what I thought was an impressive speech, although I did not agree with it, largely because the design for a Canadian flag embodied in these recommendations eradicated our past; that the maple leaf flag somehow eradicated our past, the maple leaf flag as the national flag of Canada, with which will be associated, though not as a national flag, an emblem which will recognize the association with the commonwealth of nations and our loyalty to the Queen.
This does not, Mr. Speaker, eradicate our past. This recommendation for a distinctive national flag, far from eradicating the past, salutes the Canadian future, the future of a great, united Canada, with many races, many peoples, two founding language groups, and many people who are proud to be Canadians. Yesterday, the right hon. gentleman said, and I think I am quoting him correctly, that to forget the past is to condemn the future. Who is doing that in this house, Mr. Speaker? Who is forgetting the past-


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Liberal party.


Lester Bowles Pearson: *-and who is condemning the future?


Some hon. Members:: You are.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it condemnation of the future, the adoption of a Canadian national maple leaf flag?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Those of us in the house who are of British descent do not forget our past, our traditions, our mother country and-


Stanley James Korchinski: You sure act like it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Some hon. gentleman opposite says I act like it. I will let my own record speak for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Am I supposed to be forgetting my British past because I look forward to my Canadian future?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I dislike speaking about
myself, especially on an occasion like this, but I believe I have given evidence in my own life, in my own career, in my service in peace and war, of my devotion to the British past of this country, my devotion to the symbols of that past, my willingness to serve under those symbols when it was necessary to do so; and I do not apologize to any hon. gentleman in this house for my
Canadian Flag
devotion to that past and my dedication to a Canadian future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yesterday the right hon. gentleman, in some moving words about the dedication of the French speaking element in this country to the British institutions and the British symbols of this country in the past, talked about the great heart of French Canada being, as he felt, with him in the stand he has been taking. To support that position he quoted from the words of a man from Quebec who has made his mark in Canadian history, Mr. Speaker Lemieux, who said many years ago-and perhaps the right hon. gentleman will forgive me if I requote this:
It you ask me why I am a British subject, and why I wish to remain one, I reply . . . that I prize most those institutions that secure me most strongly in our rights and liberties; and am proud to be a sharer in that great work of advancing peace and progress throughout the world, for which the British empire stands.
Those words, Mr. Speaker, are a moving illustration of much that is best in our history, but they are also an indication of how history changes and how important it is for us to change with it. The past can and must be honoured, but surely the past must not be permitted to prevent the changes that are necessary to adapt to the future; and if Mr. Speaker Lemieux were in the house today he would not be able to speak in exactly those terms. He would not be able to talk about the British empire in the way he talked about it in this quotation, because principles may not change but institutions do change. The British empire has changed. We do not talk about the British empire now in the sense that we talked about it 25 or 50 years ago, and quite rightly so.
There is no British empire in that sense. There is a commonwealth of nations of which an independent Canada is a part, an independent Canada which is proud of these traditions, proud of the principles on which our political life is based; but an independent Canada which now feels it should have the symbols of its independence, as we have been getting them over the years. Changes have taken place and we adapt, surely, to those changes. Someone has said that a country which ignores the lessons of history is condemned to repeat its tragedies. We do not ignore the lessons of history when we support Canadian symbols for Canadian nationality.

Canadian Flag
We, Mr. Speaker-and this is an indication of the change I am talking about-who served in the Canadian forces from 1914 to 1918- and I served in both the Canadian and the British forces-knew that whether we were serving in the British forces or in the Canadian forces we served under the union jack, not the Canadian red ensign. None of us saw a Canadian red ensign in those years.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not right, and you know it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: None of us saw a Canadian red ensign in those years.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You didn't serve in France, either.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, my service was very undistinguished, I admit; but I served-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and I served, as a Canadian, under the union jack and was proud to do so. It was not until 1945, by order in council, that the union jack was replaced by the red ensign as an official flag for Canada. At that time we all remember that a great many sincere people in Canada opposed that change. Many who are now worried about the change from the red ensign were worried about a change from the union jack, but I think we all agree now that this was a desirable and an inevitable stage in our national progression.
What we are doing in regard to the report of this committee is discussing, considering and, I hope, approving a recommendation of a parliamentary committee which is carrying out in its recommendation the injunction of an order in council passed as far back as 1945; and yet we are supposed to have rushed into this matter. I would ask hon. members to remember that this was authorized by order in council, and I do not recall those hon. gentlemen opposite who were in the house at that time taking exception to this action by order in council, not by parliament. The order in council recommended the adoption of the red ensign, a provisional recommendation pending decision by parliament. We are asking parliament in 1964 to take that decision on the basis of a report; not on the basis of a government resolution- that procedure has been altered-but on the basis of a report from one of its own committees in which all parties in this house were represented. Are we now to be refused that right of decision, Mr. Speaker, on grounds that we are ramming this through?

When it was first put forward in 1945 by order in council it was a provisional decision, and we are now asking that this provisional decision be changed to a parliamentary decision in 1964, a parliamentary decision for a Canadian national flag to which the party I have the honour to lead has been dedicated in resolutions at party conventions through two election campaigns as a specific commitment and, unlike other political commitments that I know about, a political commitment to be carried out if possible, or to be attempted if possible within two years of taking office; that is to say by next April. I can imagine the criticism to which we would be subjected in the 1965 session of this parliament if we had not taken that kind of action which we said we would take in a specific time period.
The committee that was set up when the earlier debate on this subject indicated that no easier, quick agreement was going to be reached by a free decision of this house worked hard, effectively and sincerely, and I would like to join others in congratulating its members of all parties and particularly, if I may, its chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Eleven out of the 15 members of that committee accepted the flag design recommended in its report; 11 out of 15. That is 70 per cent, or a little more, of the membership of the parliamentary committee; and among those 11 are representatives of every party in this house including the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has taken the position that if there had been two more, if there had been 13 out of 15 and not 11, no further debate would have been necessary and the matter could have gone to parliament for a quick decision. If there had been only two more, we would not need a plebiscite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would not even need 74 speeches on the report of the committee. No delay would have been required. I am very, very sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the committee was not able to secure those two extra votes. I appreciate, however, the position of those four members who could not accept this recommendation, a position very honestly, sincerely and firmly held. The right hon. gentleman yesterday had something to say about the report of this committee and the

various votes, and an amendment has been moved this morning which was put forward as a compromise, something on which perhaps-


Mr, Churchill:: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that was the expression used; it was an honest effort to find a compromise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As a preliminary to a compromise.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker; it was put forward as a preliminary to a compromise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps that makes me even a little more suspicious about it. Preliminaries can sometimes take a good many weeks in this house. The committee considered a motion for a national plebiscite. That was defeated, and I will not say anything about it. They considered the adoption of only one national flag. As pointed out by my right hon. friend yesterday, the motion for one national flag was carried 14 to 0; and of course we all agree that there can be only one national flag. Then the committee voted on the Canadian red ensign as the national flag for Canada. That motion was defeated by 10 to 4. Now as a preliminary to this compromise we are asked to send the report back to the committee and have them reverse that decision, which was 10 to 4 against the red ensign, which is now to be sent back to be voted on.
That is indeed a pretty far reaching preliminary. But I would point out to my right hon. friend that when that vote was taken on the Canadian red ensign, to the preservation of which as a Canadian national flag he and his supporters are dedicated, that did not prevent, and I am glad it did not prevent, the Conservative members on that committee considering other designs and, indeed, supporting other designs, including a design which they favoured strongly and which was not the Canadian red ensign but which did have symbols of our British and our French associations.
The right hon. gentleman took strong exception to Liberal members on that committee swallowing-I think that was the word he used-the three maple leaves flag and, in the interests of getting the maximum amount of support possible for a Canadian national flag, accepting another maple leaf design. They considered this matter in exactly the
Canadian Flag
same light, I assume, as did the Conservative members on that committee after the red ensign vote was defeated, and they also cast around for other designs which might be satisfactory to the committee.
Therefore we find other votes were taken. The three maple leaves design was retained by a vote of 8 to 6, but the single maple leaf design was retained by a vote of 13 to 1. I honour the members of the committee from this side of the house for the compromise they were willing to make to get the maximum basis for support, and I do not think, Mr. Speaker, they should be criticized for that any more than the other members of the committee should be criticized if, after taking a vote on the red ensign, they also looked around for some other flag which would receive the maximum amount of support.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, 11 of the 15 members of this committee agreed on a red and white Canadian flag built around the symbol of the maple leaf. The right hon. gentleman wonders why they deserted what he and others have called my flag, the one with three maple leaves. I wonder what he or his supporters would have done, Mr. Speaker, if I had tried to impose my will upon the Liberal members of that committee so as to force a majority committee report on a design which had previously been put forward in this house by me, thereby attempting to make that committee report what hon. gentlemen opposite would have called a government design. What kind of committee would it have been then?
Therefore the committee, in the exercise of its judgment, its wisdom and its desire to get a recommendation for a flag which would have a strong basis for support from every party-and it succeeded in this-made the recommendation which it did. I congratulate the committee on that recommendation, and I think the work they have done justifies the decision that was taken some weeks ago to set up this committee.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, that at the time we on this side agreed that the debate on the resolution should be brought to an end until this committee was set up and had reported we were accused of abandoning our position. We were laughed and sneered at for retreating. I remember some very strong words which the right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, used in Fredericton when he arrived there for an important occasion and learned about the committee being established. It turned out to have been a very good

Canadian Flag
thing to do, I think, and I hope the right hon. gentleman will agree with me in this and will therefore feel a little differently about committees than he did on November 13, 1945, when he spoke on a resolution to set up a joint parliamentary flag committee. At that time he spoke in terms which indicated that that was the worst possible course which could be taken by this parliament. As reported at page 2090 of Hansard for November 13, 1945, the right hon. gentleman said:
So that when an amendment was moved by hon. members on this side of the house the other day, the idea behind it was that instead of putting this matter into the cockpit of a committee where there may be engendered passions such as resulted from the placing of a similar question in committee in South Africa, we suggested that the government face the issue as a government-
Well, Mr. Speaker, we all agreed that this matter should go to a committee. We did not face it as a government in that sense; we sent it to a committee. That committee, as we hoped it would, brought about greater unity in the search for a design which would appeal to the greatest possible majority in this House of Commons. That was the purpose in setting up the committee, and I think that purpose was achieved.
Now, Mr. Speaker, are we, in face of that work which has been done, and as proposed by the right hon. gentleman, to ignore, to reject, to abandon this report? The right hon. gentleman said yesterday that it would be a step forward if we would only postpone the whole matter and forget about the report. Mr. Speaker, it would be a step backward if we were to do this, and it would prevent this matter being decided for the indefinite future.
In a very interesting television broadcast in June of this year the Leader of the Opposition-this broadcast has been referred to previously, Mr. Speaker-used these words: "It is parliament's responsibility to look after this matter". A little later, again quoting from the text of his broadcast, he said:
You say, should it go to the Canadian people. I say no.
And again-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is simply quoting excerpts. I said there should be a plebiscite. I said it at that time and I have continued to say that. But I did say that there should not be an election fought on the question of the flag.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman will have to give his own interpretation to his

words, but his words also included this expression.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, you read it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will read more if it will make him feel any better. The right hon. gentleman said:
Put this matter of the flag before the Canadian people and I fear the results.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, that is what I said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then we are agreed on that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the applause. What I said was, do not put it before them as an election issue. I advocated a plebiscite. Throughout the remarks which the right hon. gentleman is quoting he will find that over and over again I advocated a plebiscite. But I did say, do not put this matter before the Canadian people as an election issue, he himself having threatened to put it forward in an election and then having to withdraw.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I really do not want to be unfair to the right hon. gentleman, but surely to clear this matter up the best thing to do -and I will be glad to do this as soon as the procedure makes it possible-is to table the full text of what the right hon. gentleman said.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In any event, Mr. Speaker, the matter is now before parliament. We on this side as members of this party, with one exception-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: An honourable exception.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, there are more exceptions on the other side. I would be happy, Mr. Speaker, to compare the quantity of exceptions but not the quality. In any event, we accept these recommendations, Mr. Speaker, and my right hon. friend opposite rejects them. That was made clear by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday.
It has been said that we should drop this matter. Some very earnest and sincere appeals have been made to us on this side to drop it because it is premature and controversial. It has been suggested that it is premature and that, after the stand that we on this side have taken, after the development over the years and after decades of nationhood, it should be postponed indefinitely. Mr. Speaker, what would be gained by that?



11. 1S64

[Stage Direction]
Would there be less controversy over a change next year, the year after or the year after that? Would the refusal to face up to this matter now not increase the controversy in the years ahead? Would there be a real chance of getting the kind of parliamentary support for this report which I hope even now we will get? Would there be any chance of that if we did nothing next year, the year after, or the year after that? Would there be any less controversy about the design next year, or would there be any more chance of finding a generally acceptable solution next year? Mr. Speaker, I think this is the time to act, especially after the consideration that has been given to this matter over the months. Let us have a decision on this matter now.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, some hon. gentlemen opposite seem to indicate that we on this side cannot be serious about this matter, and cannot be as passionately sincere as they profess to be. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition indicated this yesterday when he said we had deserted the flag that we had put forward, and that if we had been as serious about that flag as they are about their red ensign, which they partially abandoned at least in the committee, we never would have deserted that which they sneered about a few months ago as being the Pearson pennant.
Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned I put forth that design after a great deal of thought, consideration and discussion with experts of one kind and another-and we have lots of flag experts these days-as what I thought to be the most appropriate and most beautiful design.


John George Diefenbaker: And the one with the historical significance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, and the one which has historical significance; indeed it has. The three maple leaves have historical significance; and so has the single red maple leaf, as has been pointed out.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, then may I ask the Prime Minister why it was that when he spoke in June he said the single maple leaf had no such historical significance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not recall using those words. I am quite willing to admit that in my view the three maple leaves have more historical significance than the single maple leaf, but the single maple leaf appeared on the arms of Canada, and
Canadian Flag
I do not think anybody is likely to depreciate the significance of the single maple leaf, which not only has historical but a great deal of other significance, as anyone who has ever served in Canada's forces knows.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What the right hon. gentleman is suggesting is that I insist on my personal preference in this matter; that I insist on the flag of the three maple leaves design in spite of the fact that 11 out of 15 members of a parliamentary committee, representing every party in this house, recommended the single red maple leaf on a white background, and red and white are the national colours of Canada and have been so for a long time.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman now has suddenly acquired a deep affection for the three maple leaves-


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -with blue borders-


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that the right hon. Prime Minister is entitled to-


An hon. Member:: Let us keep the record straight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would you kindly take your seat. It does seem to me that there is such a thing as courtesy. However, is your point of order a serious one?


Reynold Rapp: It is very serious, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the Prime Minister would not wish to leave an error uncorrected in the record. He has stated time after time that the flag committee recommendation was approved by an 11 to 4 vote. At no time was there a vote of 11 to 4. Our chairman never voted, and the record should show that the vote was 10 to 4.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's preoccupation with this question of order. It is quite true that the vote which took place was 10 to 4, but the chairman of that committee has moved concurrence in this report.

Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr, Pearson:: I think therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is fair for me to say that of the 15 members of that committee 11 support the recommendations of this report.


Reynold Rapp: That could be, but the vote never occurred that way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I quite agree that the vote was 10 to 4, because the chairman did not vote. Normally the chairman would only vote if there was a tie and he was required to break that tie. Mr. Speaker, when the three maple leaves design was before this house the right hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to it in the following terms: "I have seen better trademarks."


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Unfortunately there has been a great deal of depreciation and sneering about the maple leaf as an emblem on a flag. I do not understand why hon. members opposite take that attitude toward this symbolism of Canadianism. I suggest it is unfortunate that the impression has been created in certain areas and quarters that the maple leaf is not worthy of being a national symbol of Canada on a flag, and I hope that when the dust of the debate has cleared away, if this recommendation carries, we will all be proud of the fact that the central feature of our flag is a red maple leaf.
The next criticism that has been levelled at us on this side is that if it is not the Pearson pennant, as it used to be called, it is somehow or other a flag design put forward to appeal to only one section of our population. It has been suggested time after time since last June, in speeches made by members on the other side and in statements made outside this house, that this has been done by the government, and now presumably by the committee, as the result of some kind of deal with one part of Canada-with Quebec- and that somehow this is Quebec's flag. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be more malevolently designed to stir up division and controversy in this country. It is untrue and it is unworthy.


David Réal Caouette: Dishonest.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And dishonourable; and
nothing could be more prejudicial to national unity in our country at this difficult time than these anti-Quebec flag and other insinuations. I think I join nearly every member of this house in deploring these divisive and dema-

gogic tactics. To suggest, Mr. Speaker, that to introduce or support a maple leaf flag, whether three maple leaves or a single maple leaf, is to surrender to Quebec is an insult not only to our French speaking fellow Canadians but to those English speaking members of this house and English speaking Canadians outside the house who support these proposals-and many do-for the best and the most patriotic Canadian reasons. When this controversy and debate are over I hope we can somehow remove from consideration by parliament the feeling that any one part of Canada is more concerned in this matter than any other part of Canada, because this is a Canadian proposal we are submitting to parliament.
The issue now before the house, Mr. Speaker, is the right of parliament to come to a decision. Arguments have been repeated over and over again in the discussion. Statistics show how many speeches we have had and how many days we have devoted to this discussion. Surely no one inside or outside the house can argue that parliament has not had adequate opportunity to consider this matter in committee and in the house. Of course free and full discussion is absolutely essential to the parliamentary process, but full and free discussion is not the same as obstruction, as the prevention of a decision on a matter after discussion.
We have rules, and we have used them very sparingly. I hope we will never have to use them except very sparingly in emergencies. We have a rule to prevent this kind of thing. It is called closure and it is used practically every week, sometimes nearly every day, in the mother of parliaments at Westminster. Fortunately we have not had to use it very often in this parliament.


An hon. Member:: 1956.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it was used in 1956, and do not ask me to explain or apologize for the way it was used then.


John George Diefenbaker: You voted for it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I voted for it; indeed I did. I voted for it, but let me remind the right hon. gentleman that after what he said about the use of this rule in 1956 and after his commitment to remove this rule from the standing orders, what did he do about closure? I hope he will pardon me for mentioning this but his intervention made it necessary. The rule was retained, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: The right hon. gentleman supported closure in 1956 and flouted parliament, and he cannot explain it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No doubt it was retained by my right hon. friend and his government because they may have thought it might be necessary to use it in the future to prevent obstruction and filibustering. We have had a great deal of discussion on the matter before the house. The issue, therefore, is not now the right of debate, not the right of free and full discussion in parliament. The issue now is the right of parliament to make a decision after debate. If the official opposition or any opposition, because they feel so strongly about this matter, claim the right to prevent any vote by using the rules, then the government or members on this side of the house who feel equally strongly and sincerely have the same right to use the rules to bring about a vote after full discussion if that is the only way a decision can be reached. The other alternative is dissolution and an appeal to the people on the prevention of a vote.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, we will not have to follow either of these courses. But if we on this side are not to be prevented from exercising the right of decision, then the members of the opposition should show some responsibility by not prolonging the right of discussion until it becomes obstruction. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, a minority can impose its will on a majority by ultimatum, and this has been suggested in this debate. "Withdraw your measure or alter it and your tactics concerning it to suit us or we will bring parliamentary business to a standstill."
This would make a mockery of parliament and the parliamentary process. I am sure the right hon. gentleman does not contemplate or approve that result. Perhaps he will permit me to quote what one of his predecessors, Sir Robert Borden, had to say on this point on April 9, 1913, as found on page 7389 of Hansard. He said:
No one is more ready than I to acknowledge that liberty of speech and freedom of debate must be preserved, but I venture respectfully to suggest that these privileges must be observed and maintained under such conditions that they shall not be allowed to degenerate into license and obstruction.
Our friends in the New Democratic party have indicated they do not believe in the application of closure. They are not opposed as a party, and apparently some of their members are not opposed as individuals, to the recommendations of the report. I believe some of them will support those recommenda-
Canadian Flag
tions, from the record of votes we have already had. But they feel it is quite proper, and I am not criticizing them, to use the rules to stop debate on recommendations which they may not necessarily be going to oppose, so we can be forced by the rules to debate something else which they wish debated. That is not closure to bring about a decision, Mr. Speaker. That is a form of closure, using the rules, to prevent a decision by altering the course of debate. They have the right to do that. They have the right to use the rules for that purpose. If they can secure a majority for the application of the rules to alter the course of debate and postpone the discussion of a particular subject, they have that right.
Parliament's decision on this matter was assumed to be necessary 20 years ago. I repeat, is it to be prevented now? The government is not imposing anything on parliament. It is asking for respect for parliament's right to decide after full and complete debate. If we reject that right, then parliament becomes meaningless. That, Mr. Speaker, is the issue. The government proposes and parliament disposes. The opposition has a right and a duty to oppose, to criticize, to clarify, to hold up, but does not have the right to prevent a decision. I repeat, if it can do this then the parliamentary process is meaningless.
I hope, therefore, very sincerely that it will be possible to have an immediate decision on this matter after all the discussion that has taken place concerning it and, indeed, when every possible point of view has been put forward time and time again. It has been said that we on this side have no mandate to proceed with this matter. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has argued that this is a deeply controversial issue, it is a divisive issue, and that we have no mandate to proceed at this time.
Parliament, Mr. Speaker, has a mandate to decide. It is said we are a minority government and we should not bring forward this controversial measure. We are a minority government, but this is not a minority parliament. So I hope this parliament will be given the right to exercise its fundamental duty; that is, to decide after a full and free debate.
Notwithstanding what some hon. gentlemen may have said in the heat of debate across the chamber, we on this side have one thought only in asking parliament to come to a decision on this matter, to decide one way or the other. We are concerned, as

Canadian Flag
hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned, with the unity of our country. We have, as they have, pride in its progress, and we have confidence in its destiny. We are sincere in that feeling. To help reach the goal of a great, united Canada, to which we are all dedicated, I believed and I still believe we should have a national flag that stands for Canada, that flies as a symbol of Canada alone, that neither dishonours nor betrays the past but looks to the future; a flag that will say one word and that word is "Canada".
For this national purpose I believe a design is required which is solely Canadian, and that will be accepted as such by all Canadians. If, Mr. Speaker, the absence from our national flag of symbols which to a large part of our people seem to represent early differences, if that is the feeling among a very substantial proportion of our population; if there is almost unanimity in that part of the population to secure the adoption of a flag which will look forward and not backward to symbols of its own origin or any other origin; and if that feeling is shared by at least a large proportion of other Canadians, whether a majority or not I do not know, whose background is not the same as Canadians in Quebec-if it is necessary to have that kind of flag which without rejecting our past looks to our future and in that way will bring us together, is the absence of those earlier symbols from a Canadian flag too much of a sacrifice for the rest of us to make in the interests of unity in this country? Well, I suggest it is not a sacrifice at all, especially when the symbol takes the form of the maple leaf which over the years has meant so much to every Canadian in war and in peace and has become so deeply a part of our symbolic history. This is especially true when the other symbol of our past, which has appeared on our flags in the past, the union jack, is to be recognized in another way.
The hon. member for Leeds, in his intervention a few days ago quoted one or two words from a speech given in Montreal in 1923 by Right Hon. David Lloyd George when he was receiving the freedom of that city. I wonder if I may quote the rest of that sentence. At that time Mr. Lloyd George was talking about Canada's military tradition after the first war, the sacrifices, triumphs, glories and tragedies of Canadian participation in that war. He was dealing with the second battle of Ypres, and he said:
The Canadian heroes-they fought it, they fought it through the whole afternoon, they fought

through the dusk, they fought against all the principles of scientific warfare right through the night, and when the dawn came the position was saved. And more than that. The maple leaf was embroidered forever on the silken folds of the banner of human history.
Has the time not come, Mr. Speaker, to embroider it now on our own national banner? Surely those of us who do believe that the time has come and who support this change in our flag can honestly and sincerely feel that in doing so we will be helping to bring all Canadians closer together in a new pride in their country and all that it has meant and can mean.
So, Mr. Speaker, I appeal for a decision now, a decision of parliament after the discussions we have had over the long weeks; a decision of parliament on this report, a report not of the government but of a committee of parliament; the recommendations in a report of a committee of parliament concurred in by the representatives of every party in this house. I appeal, Mr. Speaker, for a decision by this parliament in which all the people of Canada are represented. I appeal also to all members, once a decision has been taken, a decision of parliament, to accept it and rally around the decision. I appeal, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition to put his great authority and prestige behind this decision, whatever it may be. He and those who have supported him on this issue have fought long and with a passionate sincerity for what they believe. I hope we will be given the same credit for passionate sincerity in putting forward what we believe.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition, a privy councillor, a former prime minister, a dominant parliamentary figure for many years, if the decision of parliament is to support the recommendations of this committee, to join us in saluting Canada's new maple leaf flag. I ask him to help us rally a united parliament behind that flag, if this is the decision of parliament, as it is raised high to fly over Canadians who honour their past and respect their traditions, Canadians who also face the future in confidence and faith, in unity and in strength, and who wish to face that future under their own national symbols.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I spoke at length yesterday and I do not intend to traverse the arguments I advanced then or the course of that debate. I rise simply to

refer to one or two matters arising out of the Prime Minister's speech.
I was particularly interested in his concluding remarks in which he called on the opposition to rally around Canada's flag. Apparently that speech was written for use after parliament had decided the way the Prime Minister wishes it to decide, because as yet that appeal has no effect whatsoever. We are discussing the question as to the nature of the design of Canada's flag, and until parliament makes its decision there is no reason for anyone to answer a specious challenge such as he has just placed before us.
I am going to mention just one fact because it must be clarified, and it is this. In all that speech, covering the areas that he desired to cover and of course detouring from those he did not wish to cover, he was unable to make one argument to support his stand that those people sitting opposite, the government of today, had any mandate from the Canadian people to bring about a flag upon which no vestige of the union jack is to appear. As a matter of fact he was challenged several times during the election campaign-I believe twice-to say what he had in mind and what the Liberal party had in mind for a distinctive national flag. On no occasion did he answer that.
As far back as 1961 he gave an interview in Amherst, Nova Scotia, in which he spoke of a distinctive national flag and he was asked this question. In that distinctive flag-and I am simply paraphrasing because I do not have the material before me-in that distinctive flag would you remove the union jack, and his answer was "I am not telling you."
He puts up the old argument that we who oppose this are therefore opposed to Quebec. That argument I hurl back at him and into his teeth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We are not trying to impose a flag. We are trying to give the Canadian people an opportunity to say what that flag shall be, because there was no mandate to the Liberal party in 1961 through 1963 that gave them any authority on the part of the people of Canada to thrust our past aside.
We are not trying to impose a flag on any province or portion of Canada. Our endeavour, I repeat, is to give the Canadian people an opportunity to determine a matter that was never before them excepting in a nebulous way. Indeed, the Prime Minister was most careful to say, when he was injecting these
Canadian Flag
suggestions, that because we oppose the viewpoint expressed by the flag committee we are anti-Quebec.
What did he say in Amherst? He said the choice of the flag would be made after consultation with the ministers from the province of Quebec.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: Who brought this-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have to rise on a point of privilege and tell my hon. friend that that statement is not true and never was said.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has been denied. It was denied by me immediately after the purported report of the broadcast.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the recording is still available. We have a complete transcript of that speech. It was he who first brought this up. It was he who said the choice would be made-a completely unworthy statement on his part-and he has been trying to run away from it since because he realized its import. On the same occasion when he was asked "What are you going to place on the flag?" his answer was the courageous one, "We won't tell you; we are not letting you know." Therefore there was no mandate.
The reason I mention mandate is because of his rather thinly veiled threat of closure. Well, we have heard these threats before. First he said the government would stand or fall on the three maple leaf flag. Then when he found himself in a position where he might fall he decided not to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Then he backed away from that and said "If you don't watch out you are going to have an election." It was at that time I said an election fought on this issue would not be beneficial for Canadian unity, and I still have that viewpoint. He said "You will have an election," but we did not cringe; we did not gasp in the face of the threat, so what did the Prime Minister do then? He followed the customary course of backing up and saying "Of course there should not be an election." So the course has been to tell us what he is going to do and place the veiled threat before the house.
In this case, however, he knows he has these allies of his who sit over in this comer, the Crdditistes. Allies they are today, but only a few short months ago they were un-

Canadian Flag
worthy in every way. I can place on the record some of the statements that were made regarding these hon. gentlemen, statements made by Liberal members, statements made by the Prime Minister ridiculing their policies, statements made by leaders of Liberalism, not the least of whom is the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis). He is a great tribune. He went through the province of Quebec and excoriated Social Credit; he showed that it was an ally of Hitler and Mussolini. People believed these hon. gentlemen. However, today they are all together. What a family relationship this is.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.


David Réal Caouette: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

I should like to know the connection between the statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the choice of a distinctive national flag.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will wait, I am going to satisfy his curiosity for information in a moment. I am glad he asked that question, because only the other day that well known democrat, that believer in parliamentary democracy, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), was all ready, apparently, to move the previous question and impose closure. Now that he has the approval, the approbation in anticipation, of the Prime Minister I am sure it will not be long before the water boys of the Creditistes again operate to help the government of the day, and we can look forward to a motion on their part to carry out the wishes of the Prime Minister.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do hope these interruptions are real questions of privilege, because otherwise they would be out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Imputing motives to [Mr. Diefenbaker.)
members of this house may give rise to a normal question of privilege.
It is presumed that we intend to support the government. That is untrue, but at least we are sufficiently honest and politically conscious to support the good measures submitted by the government, because we do not consider ourselves as members of the opposition but as members of the House of Commons, of the Canadian parliament.
I deny the Leader of the Opposition the right to question our intentions and our honesty in the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not deny the hon. gentleman political conscience. He did not refer to conscience; therefore I take it-


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, I did.


John George Diefenbaker: -there is significance in the fact that he placed before the word "conscience" the word "political". It is of political conscience that I am now speaking. The fact is that the other day it was this hon. gentleman who threatened this course of action and I expect, as I said a moment ago, that it will not be long before the allies of the Creditistes will join with the government to bring in this motion which the government is loth to bring in but can support if they have the benefit of its introduction by their Creditiste allies.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Apologize to Balcer.


Gilles Grégoire: What about Balcer?


Some hon. Members:: What about your deputy leader?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are in the process of hearing some very interesting speeches today, and I do hope we can continue to hear them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is a very fine spirit of levity apparent, and I am glad the house is receiving my words in that kindly way that always characterizes this chamber, except on occasion. I started by saying there was no mandate. I now quote, for the benefit of the house, what has been said in this regard. I have had to send to my office to get material, so perhaps it will not be in the order it should be, because I had not expected the threat of closure today.

1 do not mind; let them do it. But the Canadian people will not forget that because the government could not convince, they decided to throttle parliament by bringing in closure. Let that be perfectly understood.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: In 1917 a measure was brought before the House of Commons to produce a system that did contribute to Canadian disunity. I refer to the conscription measure. It was brought before the house and in the course of the arguments against it Eight Hon. Ernest Lapointe said this:
I contend that this house has neither the mandate nor the authority to pass such a measure. Now, this action on the part of the government becomes even more arbitrary when it is accompanied by the rigorous application of the rules of this house which are actually imposed upon us. It is assuredly tyrannical-I believe the word is still within the limits of moderation-to employ the gag in order to have such a measure passed by a parliament such as we constitute just now.
Mention was made of Sir Robert Borden. I am going to quote some of the statements that were made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in this connection. In 1911 and 1912 there were great debates in this chamber. They talk about our debating for 22 days in connection with the flag.


Gilles Grégoire: Thirty two.


John George Diefenbaker: As I said yesterday, the Prime Minister made it very clear in a speech in Hamilton that there had been no interference with the legislative program because, after all, all that had been sacrificed were the holidays of members. Sir, let me now place before you what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said.


Gilles Grégoire: Dispense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: He was dealing with a question that has now been suggested by the Prime Minister. For weeks the debate went on in 1911 on the question of reciprocity. The minister of finance of the Liberal party and Mr. Patterson-I forget what portfolio he held -returned from Washington with what was to be a treaty between Canada and the United States. The Conservative party opposed that, and week after week the argument went on. I have read the press of that time, and the press said there was obstruction because the Conservative party went on and on in that regard. Finally Sir Wilfrid Laurier dissolved the house and his government went down to defeat.
In 1912 the Conservative party brought in legislation in connection with assistance to
Canadian Flag
the British government for naval construction, a measure that would not be acceptable today and was greatly divisive at that time. The Liberal party opposed it; they stood firmly. I do not know how many weeks the debate went on, but it was a lengthy one. I have some of the press clippings of that day, in which it was said how unfair it was for an opposition so soon after an election to stand against a government which had a majority; not a majority dependent on allies, but a majority in the house. Finally the Conservative party introduced closure and the legislation respecting the navy went through. It went to the Senate, the Senate turned it down, and it never came back because the Liberal party was right in its stand. The Conservative leadership realized, after the fullest discussion had taken place, that such was the fact.
It is well to read what took place when the question came before the House of Commons in the session of 1912-13. Closure was moved on April 9, 1913, as recorded at column 7411 of Hansard. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Hon. J. D. Hazen rose in their places, and the speaker was the leader of the opposition. Mr. W. B. Northrup then rose and moved that Hon. J. D. Hazen be heard; he was one of the Conservative ministers from the province of New Brunswick. Then Sir Wilfrid said:
When you have a majority in this house, that is what we have to expect from you-shame!
They are not my words; they are the words of one of the greatest parliamentarians in all Canadian history. Then the motion was put and was carried.
Sir Wilfrid spoke later on, as reported at column 7430, as follows:
But no; he had not a word to say, but to apply closure in anticipation-
Then at column 7432 he is reported as saying this:
During the 15 years I was in office it sometimes happened that friends came to me and told me that I was not doing justice to myself or to the party, but that I should impose closure, as had been done in many parliaments. Sir, I am a Liberal of the old school; I have been brought up in the school of Fox and of the old leaders of the Liberal party; and I could not bring myself to the point of depriving a minority in parliament of such a valuable weapon as it would be deprived of by the introduction of closure. Perhaps I was wrong; perhaps I was too generous. Nay, I was not; I would rather stand here today, having refused, after the 15 years of my administration, to impose closure, and having decided to abide by the old rules. The rules of the house are intended to apply to the discharge of the duties which the house owes to the country, and to the sovereign.

Canadian Flag
A lew sentences later he said:
It has been charged against us that we have delayed the business of the house, that we have prevented it from going on.
That has not been charged here because the matter has been cleared away by the Prime Minister's frank statement which 1 quoted earlier.
Sir, I deny the charge altogether; there is not a word of foundation for it. If the business of the house is not more advanced than it is, the fault cannot be laid at our door, but at the door of the other side.
And that, Mr. Speaker, is the state of affairs today. Indeed, when the Prime Minister gets out on the stump on some of these trips of discovery, he speaks of the wonderful record of this government and of how much legislation it has got through. That is when he is outside the house. Sir Wilfrid went on:
It is quite true that when we came to the first of April, supply had not been voted, and the financial year was at an end; but if supply had not been voted before that, whose fault was it? Was it that supply was demanded and was refused?
Then as reported at column 7433 Sir Wilfrid went on to say this:
Everybody knows that whenever a measure of public importance was brought to our attention we gave it our best consideration, and it was passed.
That is our position today, Mr. Speaker. Every piece of legislation this government has introduced and carried along has been passed. Indeed, we have been so anxious to get the government to produce the legislation it has not got that we have supported the adjournment of the house so the government might bring these measures forward. Then Sir Wilfrid Laurier continued:
It is true, sir, that we opposed a certain measure. It is true that we opposed the bill for naval aid. We did that	with	all	the might	at	our command; we did it	with	all	the means	at	our command under the	rules	of	the house.	Am I to betold that in the	exercise	of this power	of strenuous opposition we did anything which is not in accordance with the best traditions of parliamentary government?
Mr. Speaker, his words of 1913 come back to us today and can be applied to the present circumstances. He continued:
Sir, at all times in this house, at all times in the mother of parliaments, there have been questions upon which the minority thought it owed it to itself to offer the most vigorous opposition possible. Under the rules of the house it is expected that the two sides of the house shall carry on the business, as was stated by my right hon. friend today, and so it is generally; but there are occasions, I repeat, when the opposition or a minority owes it to itself, on account of the strong views it holds upon some public measure,

to oppose that measure with all the force at its command.
What we have done is to carry out the concepts of parliament espoused by a great parliamentarian. Then Sir Wilfrid continued and said that the remedy is not closure, that it is not the application of brute force. He said the remedy is an appeal to the people. He continued, as reported at column 7435 of Hansard:
The people, after all, are the judge and the jury. The people, after all, are the parties to pass judgment as between the government and the opposition-
Then he said:
I am sure it was not a pleasant task that my right hon. friend performed today; and, for my part, when I compare my conduct with his conduct, I am proud that I resisted all applications for closure, and that when the time came I appealed to the people, as I did on reciprocity.
Then as reported at columns 7435 to 7437 he uttered some words which are very significant. He set out the number of times when closure had been applied when there had been obstruction. Then he said that in every case the opposition was right, as it is right today.
The Prime Minister asked me why we did not abolish closure. We had the measure ready for the house but there were other matters to be dealt with. We believed in priorities in matters which deserved immediate attention. A committee on procedure was set up but did not bring in the recommendation in question. At all times we said we would not impose closure and we followed that course, although we did not in fact abolish it as we said we would. Though the legislation was ready, when defeat came to us we could do no other than accept defeat and go to the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman would not mind my making a purely factual reference. The right hon. gentleman will recall a motion which he brought in to refer the matter to a committee. On that occasion I, speaking on behalf of the official opposition at that time, offered to support the immediate abolition of closure. So the right hon. gentleman could easily have done this that very day without any further debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that interruption is most beneficial. I ask the hon. gentleman now, holding the belief he did with regard to closure, how is he going to vote when there is a motion in this house?

Is he going to follow his principles or follow
his party?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has addressed a direct question to me and I know, in the way he always does, that he will let me answer it equally directly. I said at that time that we would support a government which had an overwhelming majority in carrying out its mandate from the people. I did not say that we believed there should be no form of closure, but I said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Wiggle, wiggle.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely, Mr. Speaker, I can be allowed to speak; I have listened to hon. gentlemen opposite. I said that we were not going to obstruct the government which had a clear mandate for which it had twice asked the people. I say to the right hon. gentleman that we twice asked the people of Canada to give us a mandate for a distinctive Canadian flag, and I suggest that that mandate should also be respected.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that question turned out to be the usual unobjective ejaculation without sense or reason or fact to support it. As a matter of fact, I quoted from the hon. member's statement yesterday and he ran for cover. I pointed out what he said, that without the union jack there would be division in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I denied that statement yesterday, and there is a rule of this house which states that when an hon. member quotes from a press report which is not in quotation marks, and an hon. member says that it is not an accurate account of what he said, the member's word must be accepted. I made whatever statements were made in Quebec, and those statements were not correctly reported in the press. I indicated that fact the following day, and the right hon. gentleman has no right to take the original report and quote from it. This same thing has happened on many occasions, and I suggest that the right hon. gentleman should stop questioning the words of other hon. members.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, 1 have had a search made to obtain the denial that the hon. member mentions, but there has been no record of it which anyone has been able to discover. However, the hon. gentleman was in a difficult position in this regard. After all, in the shadows standeth Joey. If 20220-698
Canadian Flag
there is any misunderstanding about who "Joey" is, let me state that the premier of Newfoundland has said that there will be a union jack and, as far as he is concerned, nothing else. Mr. Speaker, how uncertain is the course of the government in this connection; because having wiped the union jack aside, and having said it should not be part of Canada's flag, they are now going to have a second one. But we say, put them together.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that he stop making fatuous and nebulous threats, because we have received too many of them. Do not have your allies make your motions, or allow them to make threats because we are not in any way-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman has invited this, so I must give him some assistance. Do not make threats and expect those in the Creditiste party who support you on every occasion to pull you out.


Gilles Grégoire: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I say to the leader of the Creditistes, what did those friends of his say about him only a few years ago? The minister of health, speaking in Calgary said Real Caouette should not sit in the House of Commons. That is what they thought of him then. Today there is a wonderful feeling of co-operation between-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Today there is a wonderful feeling of co-operation between the members of the-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Two wrongs do not necessarily make a right. Do you have a question of privilege?


Gilles Grégoire: I have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition said exactly the same thing in my constituency, and his candidate lost his deposit in that election.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I never directly or indirectly made any such statement, and the hon. gentleman knows that what he has said has no basis in fact.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Canadian Flag


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All hon. members realize that during political campaigns there is a certain lyrical quality to statements.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to quote now-


Gilles Grégoire: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to quote from the hon. member again and mention that-


Gilles Grégoire: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: On the same question of privilege, the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Do you have a question of privilege?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Speaker. At the same meeting the Leader of the Opposition, while in my constituency, promised a new distinctive Canadian flag, and I should like that fact to be on the record.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the fact that that statement is put on the record by the hon. gentleman does not add any credibility to it. Before one o'clock I should like to quote to the members of this house the words uttered by the Minister without Portfolio as recorded in Hansard of October 9, 1962, at page 304 as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it does not behoove a party leader, especially in his maiden speech before the nation, to speak nonsense, even though he is the leader of the Social Credit party. I hope that after hearing his deputy leader, he was reminded of the golden era of the Italian government under the Benito Mussolini administration.
Then he went on to say:
They lied to the people during the last election campaign, they lied on television and they are keeping it up.
Those are the remarks uttered by that hon. member about members belonging to a party which today has been taken into the sheepfold, and I thought it only right that the house and the country should know of them.


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


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Yvon Dupuis: I should like to ask him why he was so proud and happy to accept the votes of the Creditistes when he was sitting on this side of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, that is what they have in mind. Now we are beginning to observe the alliance between them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on record the words of Mr. Chevrier, now a high commissioner, as recorded in Hansard of October 5, 1962 at page 247. He said:
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to a series of fallacious, mendacious and untrue statements which I find in the book entitled "Real Caouette vous parle".
Then Mr. Chevrier said:
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that one of Hitler's slogans, from 1929 to 1932, was-
The words then appear in German, and then this:
"You have nothing to lose." They borrowed not only this individual's philosophy, but also his slogan.
Today those individuals who were being criticized then have become the handmaidens of Liberalism.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: Where are the Conservatives? They are not here.


John George Diefenbaker: 
George James McIlraith: No, the Canadian flag.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the expression he used, our flag. Then, he looked over at us and he said, their red ensign. Was it not his red ensign, Mr. Speaker? Is it not his red ensign? This represents an amazing revelation of his thinking.
He manufactured a false claim when he used the expression that we sneered at the maple leaf. There was nothing of that kind. Many of us on this side of the house are proud of the maple leaf, but the maple leaf as an emblem is a long way from the maple leaf as the design for a flag. An example occurs to me as I am speaking. What about Ireland? Ireland established itself as an independent country after generations of turmoil and difficulty. It decided on a flag. The emblem of Ireland is the shamrock. Did they place the shamrock on the flag? The shamrock was a symbol, but when they built their flag, they made it a flag of two colours representative of the unity of their country, orange and green. Certainly, no one casts aspersions on the maple leaf. We are all proud of it as a symbol of the nation. However, there is a great deal of difference between symbolic significance and that which goes to the heart and soul of a nation, the flag that must represent the people as a whole.

Canadian Flag
I will say no more on this occasion except that we have no apologies to offer for the stand we have taken. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) will ascribe to us the same degree of sincerity which he has appropriated to himself. We believe that this flag that does not have anything to do with our heritage, with the greatness, the magnificent history of our country, will not induce unity. The imposition of this flag on the millions of people who have for generations accepted the red ensign as their flag, will cause a sense of frustration which we do not want to have within this nation.
The right hon. gentleman asked, when was Canada ever represented by the red ensign? One of the greatest cartoons that came out of the first war appeared in the April, 1915 issue of the magazine Punch, after the first gas attack at Saint Julien. it showed Canadians wounded and dead; it showed them raising the standard of Canada. Look up that issue of Punch for April, 1915, and you will find that the flag in the hands of the Canadian as he raised it, raised it with the strength that was available to him after being wounded and dismayed by the gas attack, was the red ensign.
In asking parliament to give the most serious consideration to this matter, I point out once more we are not asking something that is not peculiar to the Canadian way of life, because it has been our flag for generations. Indeed, if you read the advertising for the election of 1891, you will find that Macdonald used throughout the campaign huge placards and on every one of them was a red ensign, the only difference being that instead of the coat of arms there was the number of maple leaves representing the provinces of Canada. What we have tried to do, Mr. Speaker, is not anything to prevent parliament acting. What we have tried to do is to discharge our responsibilities in connection with the choosing of a flag which will touch this and future generations intimately and effectively, in a manner that will inform parliament, even though the majority thinks otherwise, that by taking this step it will be taking a wrong step.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I took part earlier in this debate and was able to state my views on the flag issue in ten minutes. I do not intend to repeat anything I said at that time. I just want to make a very brief appeal. I ran across a quotation the other day from a very wise author who wrote some 3,000 years ago SOme words which I

believe are appropriate at the moment. The writer was Ecclesiastes, and he said this:
To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that after some 250 speeches on this issue, and I suggest particularly to my friends in the Conservative party, that the time for silence has arrived. I cannot escape the conclusion that the prolonging of this debate will make those responsible for it look foolish. This is a situation which I can contemplate with some equanimity when I see who is responsible for prolonging the debate. However I do not believe we in this house can contemplate with equanimity the fact that not only the party responsible for prolonging the debate will look foolish but parliament itself is being made to look foolish. Unfortunately, I fear it looks that way at the moment. Everything that could be said or should be said in this debate has been said. Perhaps some things have been said that should not have been said, and some things have been said more often than they required to be said, but I appeal to those members of the official opposition who are contemplating further discussion to realize the time has now come to keep silent. The time has surely come to let parliament take its responsibility.
I appeal to all hon. members to let us vote on this resolution now, so that we can get on with other important business before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) will not object too strongly if I now recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take too much time to discuss this matter which we have been discussing for too many months, and which seems to confuse the people of Canada. It was discussed thoroughly during the first weeks of the debate on this matter, and today the same members are allowed to repeat over and over again the same old worn-out arguments which we have heard ever since the resolution was introduced.
Yesterday, and particularly last night, we heard the hon. members for Cumberland (Mr. Coates), Rbsthern (Mr. Nasserden), Vegre-ville (Mr. Fane) and Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) ask questions of the government concerning its attitude respecting the resolu-



11, 19G4

[Stage Direction]
tion on the order paper, what it would do should the amendment or the main motion be adopted, what it intends to do or will do. And all this while the government had informed the house that it intended to proceed with measures on the order paper and which should be taken up by the house before Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, it is astonishing to hear those people blame the government for giving effect to their own proposals. In fact, the establishment of a committee was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker). When the leaders of the five parties met the Leader of the Opposition insisted that a committee be established to study the flag issue and then submit to the house a majority report.
As was stated this morning, 11 members were in favour of this report and four against it, out of a total of 15 members.
The committee was set up following representations made by the Leader of the Opposition who also called for a free vote. The Prime Minister complied with this request: a free vote was allowed. All Liberals were permitted to vote as they saw fit. The Conservatives were also free to vote as they pleased, every one of us could vote according to his conscience and in the best interests of national unity.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, mention was also made of curtailing the flag debate. Since the Leader of the Opposition disagreed, I feel he is not justified in suggesting today that any member of the official opposition was prevented from expressing his views or that of his constituents. But, to my mind, the federal parliament has never been able to see to what extent some members are wearing blinkers which prevent them from seeing the facts as they are or to realize their narrow-mindedness.
Indeed, they only see one side of the question, and refuse to look at Canada as a whole. A matter as significant as the choice of a truly Canadian flag, of a distinctive Canadian flag, is brought down to the level of their constituency and their personal ambitions.
Mr. Speaker, some people have difficulty in realizing the facts. Some attach greater importance to the symbol of our origins than to the very existence of our nation, in short, to the future of Canada.
We rightly claim and will always claim that one must have the greatest respect for his forebears and ancestors, but there is not a single member here, including the Leader of the Opposition, who would dare put on
Canadian Flag
the clothes and shoes that his forebears or ancestors were wearing 100 and 150 years ago. We must realize that we have something better to do at this time than to reduce the question of the national flag to the level of a mere political issue.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the Leader of the Opposition did not grow in the public eye when he stated here that the members of the Ralliement Creditistes have thrown themselves into the arms of the Liberals. The right hon. gentleman knows that he is wrong and that he is misleading the members of this house. And I immediately point out to the house that a proposal was made two days ago not by a member of the Ralliement Creditiste but by the deputy leader of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer).
As reported in Hansard on page 10965, he made the following statement:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. For weeks, and even months, the House of Commons has been witnessing an unparalleled debate which is completely paralysing the business or this house and transforming it into a debating society where it is impossible to reach any decision whatsoever. Freedom of speech must be respected, but we should not act in such a way that this house be deprived of its main duty, which consists in making decisions.
Mr. Speaker, this is what we want to do at this point. And I continue:
That is why I deem that in this discussion on the flag, the whole gamut of opinions has been heard-
Including those of his party.
-and should we extend it any further, we would but prejudice the rights of parliament and the higher interests of our country.
Therefore, I believe that it is my duty to rise on a question of privilege and invite the Prime Minister-
Please note, Mr. Speaker, the words "and invite the Prime Minister."
-or one of his ministers, to give notice that he will make use of standing order 33 to have this question settled without further delay by applying the rule of closure.
We are pressing for that application, because it is impossible to bring the leader of the official opposition to listen to reason.
Is the Leader of the Opposition ready to say that his colleague from Three Rivers has gone over to the Liberals? Is he ready to repeat that his colleagues from Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), Pontiac-Temiseamingue (Mr. Martineau), Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) have gone over to the Liberals, or that they are people whom the Liberals treated kindly
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Flag
during the last election campaign, or that they are people who were praised by the Liberal candidates in their respective ridings or by the government in office?
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of the Canadian people, to be honest in his statements and to stop playing petty politics, as he did this morning and kept on doing this afternoon.
The Leader of the Opposition knows that we do not hold the Liberals in such high esteem. We have not gone over to the Liberals. We have no intention of going over to the Conservatives either. We want to remain ourselves, and we want the Canadian people to remain themselves too, all across the country. That is why we endorse, not every policy of the Liberal party, far from it, but the stand taken by the Prime Minister and the government who want to give Canada a distinctive national flag, a flag which will be the pride of the whole country everywhere, whether it bears three maple leaves or a single one.
When the right hon. Prime Minister introduced his motion in parliament, he recommended a flag design with three maple leaves on a white background and a blue border on each side.
Today the committee decides-and the Prime Minister himself said this morning that it was the committee-in order to accept a compromise, to change the three maple leaves for a single maple leaf with red bands instead of blue bands.
In my opinion, the new design is not as nice as the first one. However, the report of the committee is now before parliament, even though the design agreed to is not exactly according to our wishes.
I for one would have preferred the flag with the red and white diagonals, with a green maple leaf, promoted throughout the country about 20 years ago by la ligue du drapeau and the Native Sons of Canada. That is the flag we were endorsing.
However, we are not opposing the new design brought in. It is not that we have changed our minds, no, but we want the flag issue settled once and for all.
Within the party of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition there are members who do not necessarily share the opinion of the committee but who are ready to accept the report as submitted to parliament. There is no question, in this case, of playing politics nor of trying to toss the issue back and forth, by saying that one party is more important than the other.
[Mr. CaouetteJ
The decision rests with parliament and, the right hon. Prime Minister said so at noon today, and not without reason: it is not the government which decides, but parliament.
The hon. member for Three Rivers said also that the chief duty of parliament was to decide. We are ready to decide and, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said rightly a few minutes ago, it is time to stop talking, to cut off that "talkathon" on the flag issue.
When the right hon. Leader of the Opposition says that the flag issue is dividing Canada, I must say, and I know what I am talking about, that if there is a man who has spread doubts in the minds of citizens in various sectors of Canada, it is the Leader of the Opposition himself since he took up his stand on a distinctive national flag.
I happened to be in Toronto last week. I met there influential businessmen, professionals, students, people from all walks of life. Among these people, who are definitely grassroots, with whom we speak, many are disgusted with the way the flag debate is being handled at the present time in the House of Commons. And who is blamed? Not the government, not the Creditistes nor the New Democratic party, but the leader of the Conservatives in the House of Commons. Even his own followers have had enough of this obstructionist attitude, of this systematic obstruction we have seen for too many long weeks.
Mr. Speaker, our attitude-
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is naming names and naming the party. Would he name the individuals in the Conservative party that are opposed to the question he has just raised. The hon. member made a blanket statement; I wish he would nail it down.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I did not get
the hon. member's question, but if he is asking me whether some Conservative followers are disgusted with this Conservative action in the House of Commons I will say yes, sir, because I met some prominent Conservative followers in the city of Toronto last Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, our position on the flag question is very well known. I am rising this afternoon in order to establish clearly and have it on the record that we are not devoted to the Liberals, but that we are in favour of common sense. And when there is common sense among the Liberals, we are the very

Canadian Flag
first ones to admit it, as we are the first ones to shout that they lack common sense too often, more often than they should. We know that also.
However, Mr. Speaker, on a matter as important as the flag issue now before us, we can only look at what Canada is and will be tomorrow. We are the ones who have to decide that as members of parliament; and only parliament has the responsibility to make a decision on the flag issue.
We will not let anybody sing to us the old refrain that we are rejecting the fleur-de-lis or the union jack. We will continue to have respect for the union jack and the fleur-de-lis, but we do not want those flags to represent us as Canadians. We want something typically Canadian, something which will be recognized as Canadian throughout the world, in all the countries where we will be received with our symbol, and not with the symbols of England or France.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I will make only a brief comment on the harangue to which we have just listened from the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).


Gilles Grégoire: How many times have you spoken in the flag debate?


An hon. Member:: We listened to you; you listen to us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggest that the Canadian people reject anything that the hon. member for Villeneuve, the leader of the Creditiste party, may say with regard to the flag because, as I pointed out the other day, he cares nothing for the flag design.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He said, "I care not whether you take the maple leaf off and put on a sheaf of wheat, a beaver or anything else"; and what can anything else be-the swastika, the emblem of Mussolini, or something like that? "Anything else", he said.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is not right when he says that I do not care what is on the flag.
The only thing I would object to on a flag would be the portrait of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, what I have said about the hon. member for Villeneuve regarding his opinions with reference to the flag are on Hansard. He cannot deny those things; they are there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He does not care what the Canadian flag is. Anything that the government will propose, he will support; that is his attitude. We had the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) talking about the maple leaf today. The hon. member for Villeneuve cares nothing about the maple leaf. He says, "Take it off the flag; put on a beaver, a sheaf of wheat or anything else". Why would anybody pay any attention to his remarks concerning the flag?
With regard to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I am always surprised in this house that people should exhibit the colossal conceit that was shown today. Members sometimes rise in this house and say, "Everything that can be said has been said on the subject under discussion"; they contribute their own remarks for five, ten or 30 minutes and then they say the debate should come to an end, and we are supposed to bow and say, "Lord and master, thou hast spoken. Your willing servants accept your dictum".
That was the attitude taken by the hon. member for Greenwood today. Having himself spoken he said that everything had been said on the subject. That sort of colossal deceit has always astonished me in this House of Commons and I did not expect to see it in the hon. member for Greenwood.
I now want to say a few words about the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). We had expected him to speak last night but for some reason or other he had to be smoked out. Last evening, when he asked us to forgo private members' hour at five o'clock, he said "Let's get on and come to a decision on this matter before six o'clock", and I said no. I would not give unanimous consent because I said we wanted to hear from the Prime Minister, who has not spoken on this subject for six months. That is, he has not spoken here in the House of Commons, although he has said things outside the house. It was June 15 when the Prime Minister made his great speech on the flag that he then had selected and which he was putting in front of us, and then he sat silent in the House of Commons for six months.

Canadian Flag
We wanted to know, Mr. Speaker, what his position was with regard to the report of the committee, which is why we pressed him to enter into this debate. We had hoped that members of his cabinet would enter into the debate and support the Prime Minister. There is some uncertainty in the country whether the members of the cabinet are supporting the Prime Minister. Now and again under duress they confide in him and confess; but no member of the cabinet has yet risen to support the Prime Minister in this debate at this time. Earlier on, only two members of the cabinet rose to support the Prime Minister and spent their time talking of other subjects. This is a disunited cabinet, as the people of Canada are well aware now.
I have seen, Mr. Speaker, the sword swallower act on the stage. Today we saw the man swallowing act-the Prime Minister swallowing himself by going back on his determination and his promise in June of this year to give to Canada a three maple leaf flag with blue borders representing sea to sea. He has now come around to the view that perhaps that was wrong, and he acknowledges error and sees that the red bordered flag with the white centre is the flag for Canada. Give him another six months and he will change his mind again. It is because of that uncertainty that we have suggested delay and postponement on a decision on a Canadian flag. We have watched the Prime Minister in action for a year and a half, and given time he will shift his position. So we are well within our rights in discussing this issue.
The Prime Minister skirted all around closure today, and there is the threat. I was in the house in December 1951 when Mr. St. Laurent spoke much more clearly with regard to the imposition of closure and held the threat over our heads. That was in December and again we are in December. So we had the threat in 1951. It was not carried out although we were supposed to run scared; but the Conservative party in 1951 was not frightened away at all. We said to Mr. St. Laurent: "Bring on closure if you are so brave", and he shied away from it. Then in 1956 closure was applied in this house. The Conservative party did not run away from that issue either; and to the credit of the then C.C.F. party, neither did they. Now we have the threat of closure again in December 1964.
So therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have the attitude of the Liberal party. If the Liberal party cannot get its way it threatens closure or imposes closure. What is to happen later

on this afternoon? Are we going to have an announcement that closure will be applied next week? So that is the pattern followed by the Liberal party going back to 1951, 1956, 1964; and I hope the people of Canada realize that it is an autocratic, arrogant party, intent on enforcing its will on parliament and on the people of Canada.
With regard to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas), the Prime Minister, improperly, said that this was a compromise suggestion. As I understood the hon. member for Middlesex West, he was arguing, in a very carefully given speech last night, which was concluded this morning, in favour of a meeting of minds. His argument today was this: Let us know the point of departure so that if there is to be a meeting of minds we will know what things cannot be considered and what things might be considered. So he suggested in his amendment that we have a stand-up-and-be-counted vote on the Canadian red ensign. Is this to be rejected by the Liberal party? Let the members of the Liberal party indicate in this House of Commons where they stand on the flag that has been Canada's national flag for 100 years. Let us have it down in black and white. Let them not shelter behind the committee, which is what they are doing. Why anyone should shelter behind the committee, with perhaps the determining vote in that committee being a vote cast by a member of the Creditiste party, which has no use for Canada's traditions, surprises me. Here is the opportunity for the Liberal party, man by man and woman by woman, to record their vote.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think the hon. member has some of his wires crossed. We have use for the past in this country, but I have no use and no other party has, for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). That is where he is wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean South Centre.


Raymond Langlois: I am sorry; I mean the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).


Gordon Minto Churchill: Insult me if you wish, I say to the hon. member, but do not insult other members from the city of Winnipeg. I must stand up for my hon. friend for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We differ on a lot of points, but he is a citizen of a great city and he must not be insulted in

this house. I am glad that the hon. member who has just intervened does not agree with the leader of his party. The leader of his party wants to wipe out all history and tradition and this member does not, so we are glad to have that intervention.
The hon. member for Middlesex West was suggesting a step by step process, out in the open and not behind a committee, to see whether there can be a meeting of minds with regard to a flag for Canada. In the course of his remarks the Prime Minister had something to say with regard to his experience in war, and unfortunately used an expression which he used once before. He was speaking about the war of 1914-18, and the exact words he used were these, and I quote: "None of us saw a Canadian red ensign in those years". I interrupted and he repeated the statement. It is with regret that I refer to this, but the Prime Minister does not have to take my word for anything with regard to the first world war. I said earlier in the debate that the Canadian red ensign was seen by Canadian soldiers in the first world war. He does not have to take my word for that, because I gave evidence of others. I do not mind if he wishes to intimate that I was being untruthful earlier in making those statements. However, the Prime Minister is attacking the veracity of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). That member has placed on the record his experience in the first world war, and has brought forward pertinent evidence by quoting a statement made by General McNaughton regarding the use of the Canadian red ensign during that conflict. I am sorry the Prime Minister expressed himself in that way, and I regret having had to interrupt him, but I did find it irritating when he repeated the statements he had made earlier which we have denied and repudiated during the course of this debate.
Let me say this, so there will be no misunderstanding. The present and former prime ministers are two Canadian prime ministers who, during the first world war, volunteered their services to this country. I respect both of them in that regard. No one who volunteered for service during the war had any jurisdiction as to where he might be sent to serve, so that question does not enter into this discussion. I have as much respect for those who served during the war of 1914 to 1918 as for those who served during the second world war, as did both those prime ministers. They volunteered for service anywhere in the world, and at any risk. If 1 raise 20220-699
Canadian Flag
an objection to anything the Prime Minister has said today I do not do so because of lack of respect for the service he was prepared to render to his country during those years.
I respect that attitude of the Prime Minister as much as I respect the same attitude taken by the former prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). These men did not stay home with the paltry excuse that they had to complete their university education, or anything of that nature. They laid their lives on the line, and by the grace of God and with good luck they survived, as did thousands of others.
I have said that the Liberal party is attempting to take shelter behind the report of the committee. This House of Commons is not obliged to accept, without question, the report of any committee, particularly a committee which is composed of less than 10 per cent of the members of this house. Incidentally, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition had suggested, as long ago as June 22, that the best way to approach a controversial subject such as the flag is through a committee. Personally I preferred a joint committee of the Senate and the house, such as the committee which considered this issue in 1945 and 1946. A larger committee should have been established rather than one restricted to 15 members. In any event, we are not obliged to accept any committee report presented to this house. I think it is wrong that the government should seek to take shelter behind a report of a committee. It is wrong for any party in this house to seek that kind of shelter.
Had the hon. members of that committee been other than the members who actually were named, I think the report would be different. Why did the New Democratic party not name as a member of that committee the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge)? Why did the Social Credit party not name as a member of that committee the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe)? That party could also have named the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) as a member of that committee. Perhaps the N.D.P. could have named the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) as a member of the committee. The Liberals could have been represented by a member with divergent points of view by naming the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). Had those men been named as members of that committee I am sure the report presented to this house would not be the same as the one now before us for consideration. Those men have

Canadian Flag
publicly stated their preference for the retention of Canada's history and traditions, as exemplified by the Canadian red ensign.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? When you were in power, why did you not appoint Mr. Van Horne as a member of your committees?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I cannot see any more relevancy to that question than I can in the sale of bumper stickers by the hon. minister. Perhaps he can explain the relevance to me at a later date.
A different committee I am sure would have presented a different report. The special committee was selected with extreme care, and I am sure the substance of the report of that committee was a foregone conclusion, as was the abandonment or destruction of the Canadian red ensign. Let us not take shelter behind the workings of a committee. It is nonsense to suggest that the decision of a committee, even though it has worked long hours studying a subject, is superior to the decision of 250, odd, members of this house.
The Prime Minister during the course of his remarks referred to the single red maple leaf on the coat of arms of Canada. I noted particularly his remark in this regard, and I wondered whether the Prime Minister, who served as a soldier during the war, recognized the fact, as pointed out by the members of that committee which sat in 1921, and as indicated in their brochure, that the single red maple leaf in the Canadian coat of arms was representative of the sacrifice made by the young men of Canada during the first world war. I thought the Prime Minister in referring to the single red maple leaf on the coat of arms might have made some reference to that fact. As I said before, we must either change the coat of arms-and I do not think that should be done, taking the single red maple leaf from it-or refrain from using the single red maple leaf on the flag of Canada. I do not think we would be paying a tribute to our young men who sacrificed their lives during the war by changing a symbol which has, for almost 50 years, represented that sacrifice. What has happened to the thinking of the people of Canada since that time? Is our thinking different in 1964 from the thinking of that generation of 1921 which felt that the inclusion of the single red maple leaf in the coat of arms was an appropriate recognition of the sacrifice made by 60,000 young men of a country with a population of eight million? Have we no sense or appreciation for history and sacrifice?

The Prime Minister asked why we do not embroider the maple leaf on our own national banner. That is exactly what the joint committee of 1945-46 suggested. They suggested that the shield should be taken from the red ensign and a golden maple leaf placed thereon. They in effect embroidered the maple leaf on Canada's flag. We have respect for the maple leaf in that respect. That could be an appropriate part of a flag, and it could be embroidered on the present Canadian red ensign as recommended by the committee of 1945.
Mr. Speaker, I have never objected to the maple leaf as an emblem of Canada. Rather, my objection is that it should not be the main component of our flag. Once again I suggest to the Prime Minister that this issue which has caused so much controversy, is an issue about which hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of people are concerned. In view of that fact I appeal again to the Prime Minister, as others have done, to postpone this issue. I do not subscribe to the point of view, which I have heard put forward in speeches by various people, that Canada has suddenly become a new country and everything must be done differently. This is a country with a long history. If it has suddenly become a new country in 1964, those people who are talking that way will hear in 30 years from another generation that in 1994 Canada has suddenly become a new country. They will be told that a new century is just around the corner and everything will have to be different because it is new and that the older generation must be swept away and uprooted and all the symbols of the past will have to be replaced. If the proposed new red and white flag with a single maple leaf in the centre is in existence at the turn of the next century it will, of course, represent the horrible past that must be forgotten as we move into the 21st century with a new Canada. All this is just too ridiculous.
This is not a new country. This is an old country. It has centuries of history behind it, centuries of sacrifice, and we should recognize these facts. As has been mentioned in many speeches, these sacrifices were endured in warfare on Canadian soil in other years, as abroad. We also must not forget the sacrifices of the pioneers of this country who respected our flag.
Everything does not have to be new just because a few people get an idea that a new horizon has opened up. The great change in Canada, of course, as everywhere else in the

world, is in the material sphere because of the technological advances that are constantly being made. There is not much change in human nature. How can there be changes in the principles that have guided mankind? How can there be changes in our customs and traditions that are sound and have been considered to be sound over the years? Now and then you remove something which is no longer useful, but the main elements of our society carry on. Our society has been soundly based and should so continue. Some of these symbols mean a great deal to millions of people in this country.
This is a time for postponement of this issue. Set it to one side and if the people must decide it let them do so at some future date. But let it be removed from parliament at this time. Let the schools of our country interest themselves in Canadian history in a way they have never done before. As I pointed out earlier in the debate, to my knowledge the subject of the Canadian flag has never been a major topic of conversation in the classrooms of this country. Children have drawn the flag and so on, but the origin and meaning of that flag have never been discussed.
Educational circles in this country in every province can no longer ignore the Canadian flag. They have a storehouse of information on it supplied by members of this house through their arguments for and against and also by people outside the house. Let a period of time go by. Let the ministers of education and their advisers consider this matter. Let us have another look at our Canadian history books and see if something more impressive should not be included with regard to Canada's traditions. Let this be done and then, if you like, let another generation decide the question.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, we have heard some 252 speeches on the subject of choosing a flag for Canada. Of the 252 speeches, 177 have been delivered by members of the official opposition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: Most of those speeches have been 40 minutes in length with some a bit shorter and a few a bit longer.
This morning we listened to a most outstanding speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of Canada, a speech which I am sure in years ahead, when many of us are gone from this place, will serve as an inspiration to young Canadians. In the course of 20220-6991
Canadian Flag
that speech the Prime Minister made an earnest and sincere plea for parliament to be given the right of decision on a matter that has been before the house and a committee of the house for many weeks, during which time all the speeches I have referred to have been delivered and during which time every aspect of the matter, I must say, appears to have been dealt with. The sincere appeal made by the Prime Minister was rejected summarily and immediately and, might I add, almost with contempt by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


George James McIlraith: That still seems to be the position of hon. gentlemen opposite even though since that speech was delivered we have heard a brief but eloquently expressed appeal by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for the right of decision by parliament to be preserved as well as an appeal by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) along the same lines. In other words, speakers from two of the other three political parties represented in the House of Commons have indicated their support for such an appeal.
In the circumstances, and to prevent a mockery being made of parliament, I have no alternative but to take the action I now propose to take. I beg to give notice that immediately before the order of the day is next called for resuming the debate on the motion for concurrence in the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag, presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, and on any amendments thereto, I will move that the said debate shall not be further adj ourned.


Thomas Miller Bell: The pipe line boys are at it again. Shades of C. D. Howe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The party is over now.


Robert Carman Coates: Why don't you start singing songs again, boys?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Remember black Friday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a great honour to make the 178th speech by members of the official opposition in defence of our position with regard to Canada's glorious flag. The election

Canadian Flag
promises of the Liberal party have never been, and I trust never will be, taken as the law of Canada. We are here to make a decision. We are here to make a decision in the parliamentary way. I speak for my party 100 per cent when I say that it is our right and privilege to stand in this house and speak from our conscience and from our principles on each and every occasion that we believe it is our duty so to do.
1 have been asked by members of all parties except my own not to drag in emotions, not to parade my war effort, and I shall not do so. I speak from principle, the principle of defending those things which we hold dear and if I did not speak about those things the very rocks of Canada would cry out. The term "stubborn" is a term of derision sometimes used in trying to deflate a political opponent. However, when stubbornness is exhibited by a man of stature, whether or not he occupies the front benches of this noble house or some obscure back bench as I do, if his statements are made with conviction and sincerity, then it is a step toward statesmanship. Mr. Churchill returned to the school of his youth after some 46 years and spoke to the classes of Harrow. He had only one, small message to give them, and that message was this: When your principles are at stake you are not to desert them, never, never and again never.
Now, 178 speeches is a long way from never. However, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of this country came to this house, he came with great promise from a distinguished career in public affairs. I am sure it was the hope of the Liberal party if not the whole country, that when this man took the reins of office he would give the kind of leadership which the world and his country expected from one with such a notable career. From time to time I have stood in this house and said, I am a Canadian first and a Conservative second and, I hope, a mere politician third. This great party was largely responsible for confederation and from that day to this, December 11, 1964 we have appealed, with all the power and vehemence which we have been able to muster, to the people of Canada not to let the great experiment of confederation go down the drain.
We have been accused on numerous occasions by members of the other parties sitting in this house of being divisive in our actions. I do not see how the mere fact that I, for one, have stood and claimed I loved the flag under which I was born, the flag which I noticed outside school every

morning when I was perhaps too young to understand its significance, is being divisive. This is the flag under which I served in the mounted police for 23 years, seven of which I spent in the armed forces. I do not parade this fact in any way to establish myself as a hero, as 1 have been accused of doing by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). I merely say that this is a distinctive flag so far as I am concerned. The words "distinctive flag" of course have been used by those who would get rid of the British flag or any semblance of the British flag. I am not merely saying this because the statement appears in Hansard for this week. I refer to the extremists on the left who pretend to be more Canadian by saying they will have nothing British.
I hope that this does not include British justice because if there is one thing for which the British flag stands or the union jack quartered in our flag, it is that every citizen of this country, be he large or small, rich or poor, black or white, has equality under the law. This is what the British flag means to me, and this is what the British flag in the quarter of the red ensign has always meant to me. In case anyone thinks I am nothing but a talker I say that for 52 years of my life I have tried to make that symbol live in action as well as in words. A flag is something which we have had for many years. A flag is something which I claim we have today, by tradition and by law.
I should like to speak for a moment or two about the future. What are we going to hand on to our children, not only in the matter of a flag but in this same dual culture of which we are all proud? Where are we going to stop? As I have said, it is passing strange to me that the man who had promised to be such a great leader should not have been the first to speak in this debate, rather than third or fourth from the last. For months and months, I have sat here hoping it would not be necessary for us to appear to be filibustering. I want leadership, and I have a right to demand it from my government. The speech delivered today by the Prime Minister was perhaps his greatest speech in the House of Commons. However, I am afraid that is setting a very low standard.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You would not know, anyway.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Perhaps I would not know. I do not have a truth squad to help me. I merely have my own conscience, my own sincerity. I am speaking as a private member. By the

way, in this party, and this is one of the reasons I belong to this party, one has a right to speak as a private member. No matter how much we may disagree with our chief, never by thought or word or deed has our chief ever made his imperative views known. He has always talked to us in public and behind closed doors as the first amongst equals. This is the only attitude I will ever tolerate. I would not cross the floor of the house, but I would ask for a seat alone in the corner if this were not so. I have principles and a man who puts principles above all has the right to stand as a free citizen of this country and express his opinions on every occasion. Let my chief dare to intimidate me in any way and there would be one less member of this great party.
I do not expect members opposite to understand me. Let hon. members opposite remember that when the Hansard which contains the greatest speech ever delivered in the House of Commons by their leader is read into the pages of history, mine will not be read; but my stand will be taken now in the light of the words of that great Conservative, Mr. Winston Churchill: I will never, never, never desert the principles which I hold.
I have stood for the red ensign. It is not a party flag. It has been Canada's flag for nearly 100 years and it would be strange if anyone born in this country, of French, English or native origin, was not proud of that great banner. The first citizens of this country who signed solemn treaties with the Queen look at the red ensign as the symbol of their freedom, and if it is taken away they will feel part of their treaties has been abrogated.
There are 6,000 native Indians in my district. We are proud of them. They are Canada's first citizens, and I will find it hard to go back and explain to them why we have thrown away that symbol of peace and security which they have learned to love. When the volunteer soldiers left Canada during three wars our native people, according to their population, made the greatest contribution of any race resident in Canada. If the so-called founding races of Canada feel they are the only ones to be considered in this matter, may I point out to them we have a solemn obligation to those simple people of the soil, to explain to them why it is necessary to tear down what they regard as a symbol of freedom and equality.
I have hoped and wished in vain to hear positive arguments why a new flag should be raised on our flagpoles in place of the red
Canadian Flag
ensign. If there are positive arguments, where are they? At first when the Prime Minister presented us with his design I thought it had some merit. It contained three maple leaves, and I for one think of the maple leaf as a very dear and honoured symbol. But I want to know, why is there this negative approach?
Why is there this unanimity among certain groups in favour of tearing down the symbol we have? Why is there this strange silence on the opposite side of the house? When I believe in something I stand on my feet and say so. I make a positive contribution. If the ensign is retained I believe it will continue to be an inspiration for all classes and races of people so long as Canada remains a nation.
I make no apology for continuing the debate until I have made my point. If we do away with the red ensign we also do away with the white ensign which flies on every Canadian naval ship, and I presume we will also do away with the air force flag which flew over the airports in Britain when our great airmen, second to none in the world, helped the motherland win the battle of Britain. The men who served under these three flags, the red, white and blue ensigns, have a right to be heard.
Closure can be imposed, but far from being a great victory, far from being something to cheer about, I think it is a Pyrrhic victory. I suppose the opposition has won a small battle this afternoon in forcing us into arbitrary silence, but I wonder if they have not lost a greater battle of principle. Why is there such haste in getting rid of the flag which has served us well for 97 years? The excuse is an election promise, as if an election promise was sacred.
In the early years of the war, when the then Liberal government found itself faced with a very sticky election promise never to impose national service on the people of Canada, it held a plebiscite and approximately 87 per cent of the people voted in favour of releasing the Liberal government from its promise. In typical fashion it purported to take this as a vote of confidence, not a vote on the subject in question, which is an old trick. If the Liberal party wants to get out of this flag promise it could do the same thing, hold a plebiscite, but it has voted against doing that.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), speaking on behalf of the N.D. party just half an hour ago, begged us not to filibuster and waste the time of parlia-

Canadian Flag
ment. Yet his is the party that filibustered for two years in denying divorces to people who sought them. Apparently when one section of parliament talks it is a filibuster, and when another section talks it is a national service on a very high scale. Why should the rules not apply to everybody? Why should the rules of closure not apply to every government? Obviously the Liberals believe in closure because this is not the first time they imposed it, and the circumstances are somewhat similar to a previous occasion.
The Liberals would like to force us into an election. They would like us to make that move because they know perfectly well that this flag which represents British justice is being sadly soiled. They would like it to disappear in a red cloud with a white band around it, like a Hampshire pig.
This new design reminds me of the flag of Bolivia, but the Prime Minister did not bother to tell us why we should change our flag. He did not hurry to tell us why the single maple leaf design is superior to the three maple leaf design, and why the three maple leaf design is superior to the red ensign. When the 1945 order in council was passed the cabinet of that day were apparently unanimous in deciding we already had a distinctive flag. The question then was not to choose a distinctive flag but to postpone the need for changing the design of it.
When we marched into Holland and Belgium in the spring of 1945 and helped to restore freedom in those countries, thousands of red ensigns were brought out of the clothes closets where they had been hidden from the nazis, and every house in Holland and Belgium displayed our flag. It is passing strange that the people of Holland and Belgium should know the red ensign when they saw it while hon. gentlemen opposite say they never saw it or, if they did, they purport to despise it.
If one goes south of the line on July 1 almost as many red ensigns can be seen flying in United States cities on the borders of Canada as there are copies of old glory. The people there are proud of their long association with Canada and we are proud of our long association with them. If hon. members came to the Calgary stampede-and it would do a lot of them some good-they would see the red ensign and old glory flying side by side. Now with the change, thousands of United States tourists will not know they have crossed the border when they see the flag of Bolivia over our customs offices.

When our veterans go back to Holland they will look in vain for the flag which we associate with them.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: They will look for the maple leaf on the graves.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, it is there, and every single soldier in each of those graves was a volunteer soldier who fought under the union jack and the red ensign. I would venture to say this to the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh), that we might well consider whether our dead sleep in peace when they think we are tearing down their flag, certainly without considering it and without being given the leadership from our government which we would expect. Even supposing we did- and I am not prepared to anticipate that day- willingly set aside our flag for any other emblem, no suggestion has been made that we will lay it away with the dignity which it so richly deserves. How are we going to pay the debt to those who are not here to defend that flag? How are we going to keep peace with those? "Lest we forget":
To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high.
I appeal to this government in this regard and say, "They were speaking to you, not only to me. They were speaking to all of us who live here in freedom". They paid the price with their blood. If the people of Canada are now so delicate and so refined that I must not speak of blood or talk about the blood they gave and the sacrifice they made for us, perhaps I have lived in Canada too long. Some of my ancestors came here to be under the British flag. They could have had the so-called prosperity and freedom that exists south of the line. But I remind hon. members again that Canada was the first country in the world to abolish slavery; Canada was the first country in the world to give complete religious freedom. I am sorry that when the problem of freedom comes up again we must rely on the same old few volunteers who are sneered at and jeered at in this House of Commons of ours by those people who say our ideals of freedom are an empty dream, something out of the past.
When our friends to my left want to give dignity to what they say, they quote from the book of holy scripture. There are a good many verses in the book of holy scripture to cover this. I can give no better example than from the Ten Commandments themselves, one of which is:
Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

Not Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler; but "the land which the Lord thy God hath given thee." I am no Jeremiah and I hesitate to bring down the wrath of Almighty God on those people who so lightly turn aside these symbols of reverence which have meant so much for 2,000 years. I will not be your judge, but I appeal to you in this regard and say that when I stand here and tell you those symbols really mean something to me, I am speaking from the depth of my heart.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Others will judge them.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I do not care whether I am hissed at, booed at or if catcalls are made from the other side of the chamber; I do not care whether there are mean threats made upon my life, as they have been made in this house. Well, Mr. Speaker, threats have been made against me before; threats have been made against me for many years and I have always tried to go ahead and do my duty. That is why I am doing it this afternoon.
If and when this House of Commons should ever come to a free vote, and if hon. gentlemen opposite ever stand in their place and take their oath and say, "Without fear, favour, affection or ill will toward any person, so help me God", on the vote, I will honour that vote. When the people in this house decide to have a change of flag I want it to be done in conscience, I want it to be done on principle; and whether the red ensign is ratified or not, or whether some new distinctive flag is decided upon-one bearing the Canadian maple leaf or three maple leaves-I pledge that I will serve that flag in the same way that I tried to serve the great, old red ensign which I love.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have said anything on the floor of the house in connection with the debate that has been going on, as has already been pointed out, for some time. In view of a recent announcement, if I am going to have an opportunity of saying a few words I should perhaps take it now. I think no one would quarrel with the right of the member who has just resumed his seat to speak with sincerity, and no one would quarrel with the fact that he was doing so. But I am glad that in his concluding remarks he did indicate that he was prepared to recognize that other members might hold somewhat different views with equal sincerity.
I would like, therefore, to address myself for just a few minutes to the amendment
Canadian Flag
which is before the house, which was moved by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas), in the light of some of the statements he made during his quite thoughtful and carefully prepared speech which was a prelude to his amendment. The hon. member for Middlesex West had a good deal to say about traditions and symbols. He paid particular tribute to the symbols of the past and his respect for them. With those parts of his remarks I have no quarrel, although I must say that I sincerely believe that the main concern of those of us in the present parliament should be more toward addressing ourselves to the symbols of the future rather than to those of the past.
I did feel that the member who placed the current amendment before us, along with some of the other spokesmen in his party, appeared to have a concept of the history of our country which in effect means that history has stopped and we are standing still where we are, or where we were 50 or 100 years ago. The hon. member for Middlesex West, however, did go beyond that which he properly should do, in my opinion, particularly when he was speaking in reference to Canadians of English ancestry. I have no objection to the hon. member for Midlesex West or any other member of the house who is of English ancestry speaking for himself; but as I listened to him it appeared to me that the member for Middlesex West was taking unto himself the right to speak for all Canadians of English ancestry.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in a speech which I will label as one of "including me out", because I am a Canadian of English ancestry who does not agree with the views of the member for Middlesex West.
He represents, as I understand it, one of the constituencies of the province of Ontario. His remarks led me to think, as I have been inclined to think rather often during the course of this debate, that much of it has taken place within the context of the limits of old Upper and Lower Canada. I happen to be a member representing a constituency in the province of British Columbia. I suppose it could be argued that I have very little right to take part in this debate because, after all, we are only Johnny-come-latelies in the Canadian confederation; we have only been in it since 1871. Sometimes I feel that some members in the house scarcely yet recognize that we have entered confederation.

Canadian Flag


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is only across the way, though.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was born in Alberta and have lived all my life in British Columbia and Alberta, except for the months, and it begins to feel years, which I have spent in Ottawa. I am a first generation Canadian. My mother came from England when she was a small girl. My father came to Canada when he was a young lad. So I suppose it might be argued that really I have not very much right to participate in the question which is now before the house; I am only one of those "Johnny-come-lately" Canadians. I am a Canadian of English speaking ancestry who knows no other home than this Canada of ours, and perhaps for that reason I do feel I have some concern for what this country is and what it should become.
I must confess that I have something more than an academic interest in our past. History is one of my favourite subjects of study. I should like to say at once that I think most British Columbians are proud of the name of our province. We are the only province in Canada which uses the word "British" in part of its name. I have never heard anyone suggest in British Columbia that that is a name which should be changed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Wait till the Creditistes hear about it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We are quite happy that that happens to be the name of our province; and it was the name of the British colony which entered confederation in 1871.
However, Mr. Speaker, as I listened last night to the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) quoting Sir John A. Macdonald with regard to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway and how it was going to shorten the time to travel from London to Yokohama, and how the union jack was going to wave over these travellers all the way from London to Yokohama, I must say I should have reminded him that history is not a static thing. Indeed Canada, a nation in the full sense of the word, did not even exist when Sir John A. Macdonald was talking about this all red imperial route which was going to extend westward from London across the Pacific.
As far as I am concerned I think it is quite possible to make a logical argument that Canada came into being only in 1931, when the statute of Westminster made us an independent nation. I was a good deal younger in 1931 than I am now but I must say that

along with a great many other young Canadians at that time I was feeling my way as a Canadian. I revelled in the fact that here were we in Canada, becoming a nation in the full sense of the word. As far as I am concerned I would have become much more excited about this issue then than I am able to become now in my advancing years. That would have been the time for us to have had a flag that was Canadian and only Canadian. That would have been the time for us to have had a flag which looked to the future, which looked to history in the making, rather than to history which has gone before. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, my feeling is that for far too long have we as a nation neglected to develop a flag symbol which was distinctively and purely Canadian, which would stand for and mark that new status we had achieved as an independent partner and a self-governing nation in a new commonwealth.
I first came to this house in 1953, and at that time still very current were the rumblings of discussions which had arisen from an earlier committee of this house which had considered a distinctive Canadian flag. My chief regret is that the government of that day was prepared to procrastinate indefinitely on this subject; that the parliament of that day was not prepared to come to grips with this question and, having gone that far, to go through to a proper decision. Therefore I must say that I agree with the remarks made a little earlier by my colleague from Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), to the effect that in his view-and this is also my view-the time has come when this parliament should, after the kind of discussion and detailed consideration which has taken place in committee, pick up where the parliaments of the 1940's left off and come to a considered decision on this question.
I know that if certain actions take place which have been proposed from the government side, speeches will be limited to 20 minutes. Even though that event has not yet taken place I do not intend to prolong my remarks certainly beyond that point. But the reason I did want to get up and make a few rather offhanded remarks was to say that I wanted to be included out from that all embracing and sweeping statement of the hon. member for Middlesex West, which in effect said that all Canadians of English ancestry were being represented by the sentiments he uttered yesterday. I wanted to make this brief statement including me out, while the subject matter of his particular amendment

was before the house. Because if there is one element of this debate which has concerned me, as a Canadian, more than any other, it is the kind of suggestion which was implicit in the remarks made by the hon. member for Middlesex West, namely that somehow or other the proposal for a Canadian flag as brought in by the committee has something to do with dividing us as to whether we are Canadians of English speaking ancestry or Canadians of French speaking ancestry. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put on the record that I am one Canadian who does not feel that way in any way at all.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second occasion since this debate has arisen in the house that I have taken part in it. The first occasion was when I spoke, not on the flag or the flag design but only on the method by which the house should proceed in order to determine the selection of a flag for Canada. Perhaps I would not have arisen again had it not been for one or two events which occurred recently, and particularly today. I believe it is a shame that the only member of the treasury benches to have risen, apart from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) today, to take part in this debate is a cabinet minister who had to move closure. The last occasion upon which this was resorted to was during the pipe line debate. Many of the same people involved in that debate are still in the cabinet. Subsequent events proved they were wrong then, and they are just as wrong this time. They have obviously not learned their lesson.
The procedure of closure has been repugnant to the sense of fair play of the Canadian people. My own personal view is that never in parliamentary debate should there be a muzzling of free debate. They will say they were forced into this by a fatuous opposition. Surely we had the right to debate this issue, especially when the government dumped their three maple leaf design and produced a new one, and in view of the fact that not one member of the government stated his position until today, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) spoke, only after being smoked out by the debate of last evening.
They will learn, Mr. Speaker, that no government can afford to take for granted that the opposition is entirely wrong in taking a stand on what it believes. In every single case, as Laurier said on one occasion, where closure has been imposed, the opposition has been justified. I am as sure as I am standing here today, Mr. Speaker, that that justification will be proved to those who
Canadian Flag
now wish to gag parliament by imposition of the closure role.
Does the Prime Minister think that a flag imposed in this way will win popular approval? I do not think so. This procedure being followed by this government is unwelcome, distasteful and unjustified, and I predict that they will live to regret it.
A flag means a lot of things to many people. A flag represents one thing to one individual and another thing to another individual. A flag to me represents one thing, and that is Canada. When the Prime Minister spoke today he said he had fought during the first world war under the union jack, and never saw the red ensign during that time. For almost ten years I served under the red ensign. I remember going to school at a place where the red ensign was raised every morning in the schoolyard. That was common practice in the west, and I think more attention should be paid to the historical traditions that were instilled in the school children in that part of the country.
This flag, instead of representing Canada to Canadians, represents a Canada betrayed. It is betrayal of the past and of our heritage, and a betrayal of parliament because of the manner in which this government has proceeded. This government has treated this whole issue contemptuously. I remember very clearly what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) said, when he was speaking about closure, which was being discussed during the past government's term of office. I have with me today an excerpt from the Ottawa Journal of April, 1962 having to do with this subject. This article was written by I. Norman Smith, and I think it might be of some use if I were to read one or two excerpts from it. The article states in part:
For some odd reason surprise is being expressed at the Liberals' eager agreement with Prime Minister Dielenbaker's move to abolish closure as a guillotine in the rules of parliament.
Any of us having even a nodding acquaintance with wrong-doing will understand Mr. Piekersgill's speech as simply that of the reformed drinker who doesn't want the stuff left in his house even for emergency. He can't trust himself.


John George Diefenbaker: that a house committee "consider" dropping closure. No, no, cried Mr. Pickersgill, let's not talk about it, let's drop it now.
"I believe," he said, "that no government in its senses would ever again use the existing closure rule in our book."
But apparently he could not be sure that if the Liberals got into power again they might not again yield to temptation.
And they have done so.
It is an awful thing to see a person have to acknowledge that in a given set of circumstances

Canadian Flag
he might go out of his senses, specially when that knowledge is based on past experience.
No, no, a thousand times no, cry the Liberals; take the stuff away.
What an amazing flip-flop they have accomplished.


Mr. Hobichaud:: Would the hon. member permit a question. In view of his quotation from an editorial appearing in the Ottawa Journal, would he be interested also in putting on the record what was said in an editorial appearing in the Ottawa Journal on Wednesday, December 9, to the effect that the time has come for a decision on the flag, and also makes reference to closure?


Erik Nielsen: It is extremely interesting that during all the days of this debate, since the report of the committee was placed before the house, this is the second interjection by a cabinet minister who has not had the courage to get on his feet and say something during the debate. This is an example of the usefulness of the contributions that they have made. I suggest to the Minister of Fisheries that he should stand in his place and state his position as to whether or not he accepts the single maple leaf design with the red borders as accepted by the committee. I suggest to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) who has jurisdiction over all the functions of the citizenship courts in this country, that he too should rise in his place and state his position. I suggest that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), and the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) should stand in their places and state their positions. Those ministers have a very intimate reason for stating their positions on the flag issue. What have those ministers done in this regard? The Minister of Fisheries has stood up and asked an innocuous question instead of stating his position.
The course followed by the ministers during this debate has been a betrayal of even that symbol, now supported by the words of the Prime Minister, which they purport to adopt-the maple leaf. It has been dictated by a partisan advantage, particularly when one considers the very close rapport which exists among the Liberal members of that committee and the members of that committee who sit to my far left in the Creditiste ranks. In my opinion suspicions immediately occur when several Liberal members of a committee all suddenly express distaste for a design with three maple leaves which the Prime Minister suggested, when he presented it to the house on the first occasion, was the only design that had any national significance as

the national flag for Canada. I suggest that action on the part of the Liberal party was dictated by a partisan advantage, and I think that fact is clear.
If the Prime Minister feels that we are too concerned with the past, as he seemed to indicate today, then why, as he has stated, is it his intention to drag the union jack into the picture? He made an impassioned and spirited speech about the maple leaf. No one can disagree that the maple leaf is an emblem of Canada. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said today, about the emblem of Ireland, that they do not have a shamrock on their flag. One might say the same about the eagle of the United States. It is an emblem of the United States but it is not on their flag. One could say the same thing about the rose of England. That is an emblem of that great nation but we do not observe it on their flag. The Prime Minister fails to understand the nature of a flag, and fails to understand that a flag itself is history.
The government is afraid to face the country on this issue because of their disarray and discredit at this time. So what do they do? They resort to gagging parliament as they did once before and lived to regret it. He said today that we obstructed for 23 days. The fact remains that we were right. We obstructed for 23 days, said the Prime Minister, on the basis of the three maple leaf flag. We were right. They reversed themselves and they now have a single maple leaf. They junked the three maple leaves and are now clutching to their bosoms the one maple leaf flag.
I believe that the Prime Minister missed the point. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that one of the reasons we criticized the three maple leaf design was not that it indicated a lack of any reflection of our past alone, not that it eradicated any of our past heritage and history alone, but that the government itself has changed its flag and its tune since it introduced the first resolution. The Prime Minister cannot get around this fact with high sounding platitudes. They started out with three leaves and they have reversed themselves to one. Why? The Prime Minister's speech was full of sound and fury signifying, to my mind, nothing. It was full of pious platitudes. That is the best description I can give of it.
We are concerned not with words but with what is being done. What is being done is that the Canadian people are asked to accept a partisan flag-in fact, not asked to accept, because in view of the notice given by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) a partisan flag that has already been changed

at the behest of partisan requirements is being forced upon them. I say, sir, that the Prime Minister and his government are treating parliament with contempt by shifting and changing on the flag and that they are now adding insult to injury by gagging parliament.
They talk about respecting the past but they would junk the flag embodying our Canadian history. They talk about unity and they sow disunity. At a time like this, when frictions, gaps and fissures are appearing between the two great races of this country, they have petulantly insisted on bringing the flag debate before parliament again and again and again. They have tried, with collaboration, to foist the blame on the members of the opposition for their own ineptness and inadequacies and their lack of organization.
They talk about coming to a decision and voting on the flag, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) also did today, so we can get on with the business of the country. There has never been any reason why parliament could not have been dealing with the business of the country instead of frittering away endless hours on this debate merely because of the petulant insistence of the Prime Minister that the flag issue has to be decided instead of dealing with the national labour code, the pension plan, and all of those other more important matters that should have been dealt with by this parliament. There is where the real blame lies. There is where the responsibility for leadership lies. We have been getting nothing in the way of leadership from the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister talks about change. Change is one thing and honesty is another. He has made the issue the question of change, but that is not the issue at all. We in this party are not against change. If this party were against change I for one would not be a member of it. Why does the government keep the union jack which is embodied in the second resolution and which we discarded 20 years ago? It is not a question of change. It is the kind of change and the manner in which the government is bulldozing its way to change. Have the traditions representative of a large and substantial body of Canadians the right to recognition, after having been recognized for 200 years in this country, or have they not? Apparently not, because their views are now gagged. They are cut off, they are stifled, they are throttled and they are not being heard because of the high handed and arbitrary action of the government in moving closure.
Canadian Flag
I ask the Prime Minister what happened to the three maple leaves? If he was sincere in June, is he sincere now? What changed him? He has not said a word about that nor have we heard any of his cabinet colleagues or any of the backbenchers say anything about that aspect. What gives this government the right to play games with Canada's flag? Why did they change? What gives the government the right to decide that the time has come to deprive a great segment of the Canadian people of their history and traditions? This has nothing to do with the past. These are things equally valid in the present. If they do not matter, why the feverish anxiety about remembering them?
The Prime Minister says he accepts the report of the committee and that all members of his cabinet do likewise, but that does not tell us for a moment what happened to the three maple leaves. The government will accept anything as long as it gets rid of the red ensign. The Prime Minister calls it a compromise. I say, sir, that it was no compromise. It was a deliberate scrapping of their three leaf design for partisan advantage.
It certainly was time for the Prime Minister to speak. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) in his seat now. I think he should rise and tell us what his personal views are on the committee report. Is he in favour of the red maple leaf on the white background with the two red bars? There are other cabinet ministers here. The Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) is in his seat. Why does he not rise and state his personal views on the flag? I see the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Benidickson) completely absorbed in reading his newspaper. Why does he not rise and state his personal views?


Mr. Benidickson:: I will vote.


Erik Nielsen: I will vote too, Mr. Speaker, and I will vote against the single maple leaf because it means nothing to me whatsoever.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: There is something else I will vote against when the time comes to do so, and that is the imposition of closure in the House of Commons. I will vote against the gagging and throttling of parliamentary debate, because that is what is happening.


An hon. Member:: Another black Friday.


Erik Nielsen: It is Friday again, and another black Friday, Mr. Speaker. When the Prime Minister spoke this morning it was the first

Canadian Flag
indication that any of us on this side of the house had so far as the Liberals are concerned that there was even a flag debate in progress, because we had not heard from a single minister sitting on the treasury benches. Where is the leadership to which this country is entitled?


John James Greene: We are working our way up.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: You had better have a paid furniture invoice.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, every time I attempt to make a serious speech other members inject humour into it and it usually involves the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene).
Where, sir, in this single red leaf design is the heraldry, the history that were so eloquently described by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) in connection with the three maple leaf design that was so eloquently described by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in June when he introduced the resolution? Where has that gone? In June, the Prime Minister waxed eloquent about this design for the three leaf flag; it was the only one with tradition and history. Now he approaches the whole matter on tip-toe; the whole thing has been dumped in his lap. He is now saying, I accept the single leaf and so do all my cabinet colleagues. The fact remains, sir, this flag design was chosen by ten members of this house, seven of whom were Liberals while the other three were from the splinter groups to my left.
This afternoon the Prime Minister said, certainly, I put forward the three maple leaf design. He referred to the historical significance of it. He said also that the single maple leaf had historical significance. It is strange that this historical significance should suddenly show itself when it did not have any such significance last June when the three leaf design was introduced by him. He says, however, that the three leaves have greater significance. I suppose they have three times greater significance. The members of that committee chose the single leaf design, seven of them were Liberals, and yet we are asked to believe that it is not a partisan flag, that it is not a partisan issue. I am informed also, sir, that the Liberal members of that committee voted unanimously against the three leaf design. This afternoon the Prime Minister skated around that fact.
The fact remains, sir, that either the Prime Minister and those opposite were sincere in June when they said that only the three

leaves had the qualifications that were desirable in a national flag or they are not sincere now. They cannot have it both ways. Either they believe what they are saying now or they did not believe what they were saying then. If they did believe what they were saying last June, the only conclusion is that they changed their views to get the support of the Creditistes, the Social Crediters, and the members of the N.D.P. He injected into the debate this afternoon, and this to my mind was one of the Prime Minister's well known straw men, the fact that the report of the flag committee was a surrender to Quebec. I was sorry to hear him say this, because it only further inflames, and he must take responsibility for having done so, the French-English differences which appear in this country today. Who said, before he did this afternoon, that it was a surrender to Quebec? Whom was he quoting? Was it, perhaps, the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan)? No one on this side, certainly in the speeches to which I have listened or have read, has described the committee report as a surrender to Quebec.
I feel, sir, that it is a disgrace that Liberal cabinet ministers have not spoken in this debate. We have had to wait two weeks to find out where they stand, and we have had to learn that from the Prime Minister. I feel that cabinet ministers, in that spirit of leadership which is supposed to exist in any government, have a responsibility to see that we are informed on how they stand, what their personal views are. Having said these things or having indicated to the house partially why I intend to vote against closure and intend to vote against the single maple leaf design, I shall take my seat.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague who spoke before me, I wish to say that I intend to vote against closure and vote against the maple leaf flag. In fact, many of us on this side wonder why only one member from that side expressed his views. I refer not to the frontbenchers as my colleague did, but to the backbenchers. Why have more of you not had the intestinal fortitude to get up and tell the people what you really think. You are going to have to go back and tell your constituents.
The other day one of the speakers in this house said that the backbenchers on the opposite side of the house looked and acted as if they were imprisoned in strait-jackets. Actually, that is the way they have looked

to us ever since this flag debate started. Today, as a result of the dictatorial action of the government, we have had strait-jackets imposed on us. I was very impressed this afternoon with the words uttered by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg), particularly when he reminded us of that poem "In Flanders Fields" by Colonel McCrae, part of which is, "to you from failing hands we throw the torch." I ask today, has that torch gone out? Have you thrown it?
I told you a few moments ago that you imposed a strait-jacket on us and we must accept it because that is the law of our country. I hope you are very proud of that. I said it appeared to us that you members on the back benches have refrained from speaking on this issue because you have been instructed to do so by your leaders. My colleague says you were threatened. I wonder what that threat was. The sole contribution that you people on the back benches have made in this debate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; may I remind the hon. member that he should address the Chair?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am addressing the Chair and I excluded you from these remarks. The sole contribution that will go down in history that the back benches of this government have made to this loss of the red ensign for Canada is recorded in Hansard. It is interjections, interruptions, laughs, facetious questions, irresponsible points of order and privilege and ridicule. In my opinion, this major issue, this very important election promise that you people say you made-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; the hon. member was cautioned a moment ago by the Chair that he cannot address other members of the house directly. He can only refer to them in the third person.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will ask you, and possibly I can get an answer. We wonder why they have remained silent. We ask why they have remained silent. I am sure their constituents will ask them why they have remained silent. I know the veterans in their constituencies will ask them why they remained silent. I am sure that in future years the children of this country will ask them why they remained silent. They say it was because of a promise that they gave to the country to give the country a distinctive flag. I wonder if they are not confusing extinction with distinction by their actions.
Canadian Flag
They may well believe it when they say that this promise made must be fulfilled. I said in the house the other day that you people went out west and made one promise that was very dear to the hearts of the western farmers. You promised $2 wheat. What is going to happen to that promise? You also promised the labour people of Canada a labour code. What is going to happen to that promise?
One member of your party promised a Canada pension plan. What has happened to that? What happened to the medicare plan? What happened for the relief of those people depending on railway lines during the question of rail line abandonment? Why do you remain silent? Mr. Speaker, I hope when they answer they will answer through you, in the same manner as you asked me to ask these questions.
Is it because they have a tiger by the tail and are afraid to let go? Is that why they remain silent? Is that why they enforce closure? Is it because they have been instructed to keep silent? The people of Canada have a right to know. Certainly their constituents have a right to know why they sat silent during these days of debate except for, as I said before, interjections and interruptions.
Is it because they have no respect for the Canadian red ensign? Is that the reason they have remained silent? Is it because their constituents do not want them to speak up? The Hansard record will show how many times these backbenchers got up and spoke on this very important issue which they said must have priority above all others. They have said nothing on it. Is it because there have been other types of pressure put on them? Have they been told to keep quiet for some other reason? The country is entitled to know the answer. Are they too apathetic or too complacent, not caring whether the red ensign comes down or not?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Is that the hon. member for Kootenay East? He has been on record more often in the House of Commons than most and has made the shortest speeches of anyone in the house. He makes them from a very good place, from his seat. Let him get up and tell us what he thinks about this flag. Why don't they speak?


Pauline Jewett: I try to speak only once on any matter.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, teacher.

Canadian Flag
Are they aware that the whole flag issue has become a red herring? The reason I say red herring is because I have in my hand The Western Producer oi December 10, which arrived just this morning. It shows a picture of a flag suggested by a certain group in the west, and I may say this is a publication which to my knowledge has never been favourable to this side of the house but is always favourable to the party that forms the government. The caption under the picture reads:
Frank Cushon of Oxbow is shown holding his "red herring" flag which he introduced to the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan farmers' union in Saskatoon last week. The design was introduced as a joke but S.F.U. delegates took it seriously and decided to send a copy of the flag to Ottawa for consideration by the House of Commons.
Why did the Liberals introduce this red herring in the first place? Is it because they needed another 60 days of decision? We could have given them another 60 days. We could have given them a recess which cabinet ministers could have spent in their offices preparing bills properly.
Was it to divert public attention from more inefficient government or was it, as Time magazine said, for spite? I do not have Time magazine with me, but it referred to the action taken by the Prime Minister after the famous Legion meeting in Winnipeg. It said they never saw a man react so fast as after the reception he got at that meeting.
The government has conveyed to the public that the decision on the flag shall be left to the judgment of members of parliament. Dealing with the judgment of members of parliament I ask, do hon. members opposite, with but one exception, agree with what Edmund Burke has said about members of parliament and their duty? I quote the following extract:
Soul-searching and attention to business are what a great parliamentarian and political philosopher of the so-called golden age of oratory believed should be principal ingredients in the life of an M.P.
Edmund Burke said in the 1770's that an M.P. should "live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents."
"Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfaction, to their's; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interests to his own."
Burke also held the view that an M.P. isn't elected simply to vote slavishly on every question as his electors demand. He is elected as a man of judgment on whom the electors should be able to depend. As Burke put it:
[Mr. McIntosh.)
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it for your opinion."


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


John (Jack) McIntosh: Surely.


John (Jack) Davis: Would he take that quotation from Burke to refute a plebiscite or as an argument in favour of a plebiscite?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I do not know where the hon. member was all the time I was talking, but I was referring to the judgment of members of parliament. I ask you, in your judgment, did you serve your constituency well by sitting in the house and not talking on this issue at all?


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



CRIMINAL CODE


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: the second reading of Bill No. C-68, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have introduced this bill on a number of occasions. In fact it is an identical copy of one that was introduced by the former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) prior to his assuming the reins of office. I thought the bill had a great deal of merit at that time and since then I have introduced it from year to year in the hope that it will be a first step in doing something about the prevention of pollution of our waters.
The purpose of the bill is to make it an offence for the owners of industrial plants and oil refineries or other persons to discharge noxious matter into an interprovincial water thus endangering the lives, safety, health and comfort of the public.
In the first instance the bill was introduced to prevent, if possible, the pollution of certain waters that came from the province of Alberta and flowed into the Saskatchewan river.
For many years I have been very interested in the conservation of natural resources. I want to say that we can talk all we like about pension plans, national medicare plans and all the other social improvements that all members of this house desire; but unless

we maintain and improve our national resources, our standard of living in the future- and the not very far distant future-will begin to decline. All civilizations have been based on a foundation of adequate natural resources. I have been interested in this subject all my life, Mr. Speaker, and I know something about it. I have tried to do what I can in my own small way to conserve the land that I hold at the present time as a trustee for the government, pending the revolution. I have tried to do the same with the rivers and waters that flow on my property, and the forests and the wildlife. I believe I have had considerable success, so far as a private owner can under this free enterprise system. However, on that account for years I moved a motion in the house in the following words:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation, with the view to the establishment of a nationwide policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, although over quite a number of years all members of the house supported this resolution in principle and gave it their blessing, shall I say, no action was taken as far as the resolution was concerned; it was talked out at the end of the usual private members' hour. On one occasion when I raised the matter the minister at that time replied. I am quoting from page 1565 of Hansard of February 27, 1956, where I said:
When speaking on my resolution last year the minister gave three reasons for not agreeing to accept it. While he supported the principles of conservation in general, he gave these three reasons for not being able to accept the resolution. First, he said that the prime responsibility for conservation of resources rests with the provincial governments. Second, he said that the suggestion for federal action should come from the provincial governments. Third, he had grave doubts as to the success of a conference called to deal with all renewable natural resources.
I want to give full credit to the former minister of northern affairs and national resources for his calling the renewable resources conference in Montreal in the summer of 1961, when numerous very interesting papers were delivered to the conference. As the result of this conference there was the establishment of the Canadian council of resource ministers, and I am glad to see, from reading the reports that I get from this council, that they are beginning to tackle this question. They have laid out a program in which the question of pollution takes a prominent part,
Criminal Code
and they are also providing for the receipt of information from other nations regarding research with respect to natural resources and their development. They are also providing for an exchange of information between the federal government and the provincial governments. I give the former minister, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), great credit for calling that conference. I think the circumstances were somewhat different then, inasmuch as the former government of Mr. Duplessis had been defeated and I believe it is quite correct to say that the atmosphere in Quebec was more conducive to calling a conference of this type than it had been in years past. I am glad to know that this council is laying down a program dealing with this problem.
I am also very glad that the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) has recognized the tremendous need for a national water management policy and has made a number of speeches on this question. I note that some time ago, through, shall I say, the vehicle of his very distinguished and good looking parliamentary secretary, he made a speech in Montreal on the question, in which he clearly indicated that he realizes what we have to do in this respect and what price the public is paying for confused policies, haphazard programs and ill planned projects. He went on to deal with the damage caused by floods; the situation with respect to shipping in some of our rivers; the depletion, often to perilously low levels, of those secure supplies of fresh drinking water without which great cities cannot exist; the virtual destruction of our once great commercial fisheries. Then he dealt with the pollution problem that is only beginning to be faced. Then he went on to deal with the slow decay of sports fishing in some areas that had previously enjoyed an international reputation; the acute shortage of water for irrigation and other purposes in farm areas; the need for water for recreational purposes, and the water required for industrial purposes. Then he dealt in a very interesting way with the fragmentation of government authority in the water resources field which, he said, "fosters a fierce rivalry and a devil-take-the-hindmost empire-building in competitive government agencies, encourages waste and duplication of effort and the taxpayers' money and which virtually guarantees an appallingly uneconomic use of water resources which, however vast, are not limitless". He then dealt with other aspects of the question and made

Criminal Code
certain proposals on how the government of the day should meet this situation. I was very pleased to see him face up to this question, because it is a very important one facing us at this time.
I want to quote briefly from an article that appeared in the October 9 issue of the Globe and Mail. It is headed, "But in the mass we're a pack of vandals". I agree with that sentiment and I could use that word "vandals" in a much wider way than possibly I should use it under the present circumstances. This article says:
One of the more certain ways of making sure that one does not run out of essential goods is to make sure that one does not waste, despoil or pollute the bountiful supplies one already has. This is a fairly straightforward fact of life which is readily comprehended by most individual humans; but it is a fact that takes an awful lot of getting through the heads of the human mass.
It is a question that is going to take a great deal of education, not only in parliament and in organizations interested in this question but in our universities, high schools and the public schools. Every one of our children going to school, regardless of their age, should have their attention directed as soon as possible to the great importance of these issues. The article goes on to say:
Canadians who appreciate a comfortable life do not stuff good food into the garbage can, smash up their furniture, yank up their rosebushes or pour the fresh cream in with the sour. They have too much respect for themselves and their possessions to indulge in such vandalism.
Yet these same Canadians, in that larger home of theirs which is the country, happily litter their parks, destroy their forests, waste their topsoil and pollute their rivers and lakes. These things are quite as essential to their well-being as their more personal possessions, are, in fact, the basic wealth from which many of the personal possessions spring. But belonging to everybody they seem, in the contradictory human mind, to belong to nobody and therefore not to be worth preserving.
I think that article very clearly states the question. As I said before, unless we do something to conserve and develop these renewable natural resources of ours as a result of management policies, our standard of living which we enjoy today and the opportunities for its possible improvement through legislation both in this house and in the legislatures of the various provinces will decline in the years ahead. There is no question of that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am very concerned with this particular issue. In my opinion we in this house are responsible for doing what we can to improve this situation as the result of legislation or amendments to existing legislation, and by keeping

the public informed of the seriousness of the situation.
Water is so important in life that its conservation and distribution must override the geographical boundaries of private property, counties and provinces, the political boundaries of federal and provincial jurisdictions, and the economic domains of agriculture, forestry and industry. If jurisdictional disputes prevent effective action, our heritage in natural resources will be lost by default, because above all boundaries is the supreme natural law the edicts of which are indisputable.
All that is to be done must start in the minds of citizens. "We may well ask", said John H. Storer, renowned lecturer on the natural world, in his book "The Web of Life", which I recommend to all hon. members to read, "whether man will develop understanding before he destroys himself by destroying his environment". To which may be added what was written by Myra Mannes, United States writer and commentator, in her book "More in Anger", which again I recommend members secure from the library and read, when she referred to "people who conserved their convenience at the expense of their heritage, and whose ephemeral prosperity was built on waste". The least we can do as responsible individuals is to become informed about the problems and make our voices heard in demanding conservation of our most priceless material resource, which I think at the present time without any doubt is water.
Before concluding my brief remarks I want to deal with a subject that does indicate the great value of water not only to Canadian subjects but to people in the United States and other countries. I want to refer to a statement made by the North American power and water alliance. The United States senate has appointed Senator Frank Moss of Utah as chairman of the new water development subcommittee. This subcommittee, known as NAWAPA-North American water and power alliance-has been appointed to make a study of how the waters of the Yukon, Northwest Territories and British Columbia-our waters, mind you-can be drawn down to the states of Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, California and Arizona to make their deserts bloom. It is the wish of the United States senate to store this water in what is known as the Rocky mountain trench, in British Columbia. The United States senate wishes to turn the Rocky mountain trench into a huge lake 500 miles long if these schemes come to fruition; and I



IX, 1964

[Stage Direction]
mention this to indicate how concerned they are with the problem of water. The water from this 500 mile long lake would be taken by way of canals, reservoirs, tunnels and rivers to water the great American deserts of the previously mentioned six states. Perhaps even more important, these waters would be used for expansion of industries and populations in cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Tucson and many others.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is happening in this question? The United States is coming to Canada with the proverbial hat in hand claiming that they are all but out of water. Is their claim genuine, or are they conserving their own water for long range future expansion? The United States knows that at the present time Canada is still very much underpopulated, and perhaps does not realize how important water will be for Canada's future growth. Senator Moss has stated on several occasions:
The era of space probes and miracle drugs has not changed man's dependence upon "the life blood of civilization". Cities and nations grow in direct ratio to their water supply. When that supply fails, they perish.
As they have in past history.
If Canada gives away all of her western water supply, can she continue to grow as a nation? Indeed, can she continue as a nation at all? Since 1940, or in the past 24 years, Canada's population has jumped from 10 million to 19 million. It is quite realistic to suppose that in the next 20 to 25 years the population could expand to 40 or 50 million. To support a population of this size we will have to turn away from a lot of uneconomical dry farms to irrigation of smaller, more productive farmsteads. If the United States plan is carried out, all the water of any importance left to Canada will be the Saskatchewan river system, as far as western Canada is concerned. But even now, before the Elbow dam on the Saskatchewan is finished, it is believed that the water supply will not be adequate to meet the present needs of Saskatchewan. That does not give us much hope for the future, unless we can tap some of the Arctic or British Columbia rivers. In all probability, we will be needing both these sources.
I could go on and deal further with this question, but in concluding this portion of my remarks I want to say that at the Canadian end of Senator Moss's project most of the rivers would have to be reversed. That is, the United States would have to make the rivers flow backwards and do a great deal
Criminal Code
of engineering miracles to accomplish that end. This plan has not been put into effect. Fortunately, I think the government of the day is aroused to the circumstances of the present situation and are determined, according to the statements made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) and his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Turner), to develop a water management policy which will protect the needs of Canada both at the present time and for generations to come.
I have dealt with this vast project, the North American water and power alliance, only briefly, Mr. Speaker, so as to indicate how important is this question of water on the North American continent and what the United States is having to do to obtain additional supplies. My bill, shall I say, takes a somewhat shallower approach to the situation than the one I have been developing, but I have used this argument to indicate the urgency of the situation and the need for the development of policy. I was very surprised to realize when I was in the committee on mines, forests and waters the other day that there has been a committee of deputy ministers from various departments throughout the years which is supposed to meet periodically and come to decisions as the result of interdepartmental consultations on various water questions which are brought to their attention. And what do we discover? We discover that at the present time the committee has not even a secretariat, and we could not get very complete information as to when the committee had met and what its decisions had been over the last few years.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and I see you looking anxiously at me, I urge the house to consider the purposes of my bill amending the Criminal Code as a first step toward the further prevention of pollution of our rivers which flow from one province to another, or which may in the future be transferred from one province to another by gravity or by pumping. This amendment to the Criminal Code represents only a minor step, but I suggest we take that first step on that long road we have to travel.
Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) on the presentation of this bill. I assure him that I agree wholeheartedly with the principles of it; however, I have some reservations as to its effect. First of

Criminal Code
all, I do not think a private member's bill is the proper way of doing this job and, second, that Bill C-68 is not wide enough or all embracive enough.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We quite frankly admit that and suggest that this is only a minor step in the right direction.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Criminal Code
through in the process of using our vast store of salt water would revolutionize the world's economy. President Kennedy was right. It is a far more exciting prospect and surely a far more practicable one than landing on the moon.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give my general support to the bill. My remarks will be brief because I see the time is getting short and I know that other members of the house would like to speak on this subject. The reason I support the bill is that at heart I am a conservationist. I think that any of us who have travelled abroad from this fair Canada, particularly those who have travelled to the Far East and who have seen the situation that exists there today, where conservation has been one of the last things the people have had in mind, have very quickly become conservationists.
I am very pleased to see that the whole matter of conservation and the whole matter of pollution are very much in the minds of other organized bodies throughout the world than the one the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) just mentioned in his speech. I have just returned from the NATO parliamentarians meeting in Paris. Although I was a member of the military committee, I noticed that the scientific committee had this matter under consideration. They were dealing particularly with the pollution of water as a result of nuclear development, but they went very much beyond that in their deliberations.
If we want to bring the matter somewhat closer to home, I would point out that in today's Globe and Mail there is an article describing how a whale was killed off the Oregon coast, off the Pacific coast from which I come, and the whale apparently had become radioactive as a result of the waste products carried down the Columbia river from the Hanford atomic plant. The fault I find with the bill, as the hon. member himself admitted, is that it does not go far enough. I should like to see the problem of pollution dealt with in a more general and broader way than is done in the bill. I think it is one of the basic requirements for the enjoyment of life that we should have clean water and clean air and that we should preserve the beauty of our countryside, including the preservation of wildlife, flora and fauna.
So far in my life I have seen tremendous changes take place in my part of the country. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, a great

period of industrial expansion is now under way in the west. I am not going to blame the industrial firms themselves. There is a statement to be found on page 823 of Hansard for February 13, 1962, which I think covers the situation very clearly. If certain things that are going on in my part of the country today are taking place, I believe it is because the companies involved are not being pressured to take action and very naturally they will do nothing until they are. I wish to read an extract from a paper prepared by Mr. J. R. Menzies, chief of the public health engineering division, Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa. He states in part:
Broadly speaking, the effects of pollution become a matter of general interest only when they are notoriously bad.
I am taking part in this debate today because although I do not think things are notoriously bad in British Columbia, yet they could be better and, as the hon. member has suggested, I think we must be vigilant with regard to the industrial development that is going on in my part of the country. In this bill we are dealing with the pollution of clean water. Clean water comes from creeks, rivers and lakes, and it is not only clean drinking water about which I am concerned. In my area we have a large fishing industry. The same clean water for human consumption about which we are speaking also provides the basis for a very profitable commercial fishing industry and also provides a very valuable source of revenue, through moneys expended by tourists interested in sport fishing. If we are going to keep the water clean for human consumption I think that at the same time we must give equal this commercial fishing industry and sports attention to keeping the rivers, streams and lakes clear to provide a base from which fishing industry is derived.
I have noticed that within recent years in my own part of the country, because of the method of logging, the area in which many of the small streams and lakes are located has been laid waste. This has resulted in flash floods which wash down sand and gravel into the streams covering the spawning beds with mud. I have noticed that slash is left to accumulate in the creeks and the salmon cannot get up the rivers to spawn. If they are able to spawn their fry are not able to survive, because of these flash floods tearing down the spawning beds.
When we are looking at the matter of water pollution, upon which I am only touch-



11. 1S64

[Stage Direction]
ing in view of the time element in this debate, we should look also at the matter of air pollution. I think we have a big problem. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that no one seems to be taking a stand against the pollution of the atmosphere.
Some 20 or 30 miles north of my riding, we have a very large pulp and paper sulphite mill. When the wind and weather conditions are right there is a most unpleasant smell in the atmosphere which emanates from these plants. It may be that this is the smell of money, Mr. Speaker, but it is also something which I find simply appalling. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) will agree, I am sure, that something could be done if we were to provide a body to look after the interests of the public in connection with this type of thing. In the case of the large smelter at Trail, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company were eventually persuaded to remove from the atmosphere the poisons that were being poured out of their smelter. They only took this action under pressure. I find that no pressure is being brought to bear upon the pulp and paper company. I am sure that if there were, if there were some central organization to apply this pressure, we would long since have had this ghastly smell removed from the atmosphere.
Why is it that nothing is being done? I notice the hon. gentleman has brought forward this bill many times in the past. I have been very interested in reading what has been said, and agree wholeheartedly with it. An almost identical bill was brought before the house, as the hon. member said, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in years past. Why has nothing been done about it? I think perhaps it is because this is a matter which obviously has federal and provincial implications. Even in so far as the federal government is concerned, who knows which department of government is responsible for looking into these matters? Is it a matter for the Department of National Health and Welfare? I suppose that it relates to both health and welfare. Is it a matter for Northern Affairs and National Resources? I think it comes under national resources. Is it a matter which should be the responsibility of the minister who has jurisdiction in the field of federal-provincial relations? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is the responsibility of all three.
Now, in so far as conservation is concerned, since it is related to the question of
Criminal Code
pollution, I should like to cite a personal experience which I hope will be of interest to hon. members in this house and drive home to them the importance of this problem. I can recall some years ago going up a river in China, the Yangtze, and believe me this is a river that can only be used for irrigation purposes and for travel. It is not a thing of beauty. It is so polluted, Mr. Speaker, that if any westerner happens to fall over the side of the boat into the river he is immediately brought ashore and put into a hospital where he is filled with wonder drugs and kept under surveillance. This is the kind of thing that happens when you are not careful about matters of pollution.
In dealing with the matter of conservation, perhaps hon. members would be interested in knowing that this river is yellow and muddy because there has been no thought given to preserving the contours of the land, to keep the underbrush and trees growing to prevent flash floods, such as those I mentioned in my part of the country, and which there give rise to the spoiling of the salmon fishing beds. In fact, as you go up this mighty Yangtze river, when you get to within 50 or 60 miles of a town, the trees disappear. This results from the people leaving the towns to chop down the trees for firewood. When you get within 30 miles of the town all the shrubs disappear and there is nothing left but grass. This is a further evidence of the despoiling of the country for human needs. Then, the most appalling aspect of it occurs when you get within ten miles of a town and you find there is not a blade of living grass in sight. The needs of the population have required them to take the grass and the roots, dry them out and put them up in bundles for fuel. This is something which has happened in another land and it is the sight of this sort of thing which has made a conservationist out of me. It is the reason for my support of this bill.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I recommend that this subject should be brought up at the next federal-provincial conference so that the federal-provincial representatives can agree on joint responsibility for conservation and pollution. Terms of reference should be laid down for a joint board to handle all these aspects of pollution and conservation to which the hon. member has referred. The only fault I can find with this bill is that it does not go far enough.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my support for the bill which has been presented by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-

Criminal Code
ridge). This bill has been introduced before and has given rise to very interesting discussions on various aspects of the conservation policies of this country. I think the bill itself, by the very limitation of its form and the fact that it only calls for an amendment to the Criminal Code, indicates some of the complexities that arise because of the constitutional situation in this country in connection with the development of adequate conservation policies. However I feel that, since it has been introduced year after year, the hon. member for Kootenay West has been the cause of creating great interest in this subject in Canada. Certainly for this reason, if for no other, the hon. member is to be commended for introducing it.
Perhaps some hon. members are not aware of the genesis of this bill. It used to be introduced prior to 1957 by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It may be recalled that it was due to a problem of pollution in the North Saskatchewan river, in which my former colleague, the then hon. member for The Battlefords, used to take an active part. Therefore I am a little puzzled not to see the hon. member for Prince Albert or the present hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Horner) in their places to support this bill.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is to be commended for having taken up a good idea and having pursued it throughout the years, even without much apparent support from the hon. member for Prince Albert in the years since 1957. I hope the time may come again when that hon. member will lend his voice in support of the bill.


David George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this bill should pass, for reasons that have previously been indicated. It is a narrow bill and deals only with a portion of the problem. On the other hand I think the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has done the house a service by raising the problem.
One of the great things I am worried about is that the public generally does not seem to care about the problem of water pollution, and this can be overcome by discussing the matter in the House of Commons. I grew up adjacent to and have lived all my life on the shores of one of the great lakes. I spent my summers there and still do. I have become very concerned about and aware of the pollution that is taking place in the great lakes, and I would like to quote from an article which

appeared in the Financial Post on April 18 last, dealing with the extent of pollution in the great lakes area:
This is what's happening in the biggest expanse of fresh water in the world around which 25 per cent of all Canadians live and work:
On lake Erie and lake Michigan, studies made by the great lakes institute indicate that, although 60 per cent of the sewage and industrial effluents are treated before being dumped into these lakes, it is essential to treat at least 80 per cent of polluted water to restore the impure-pure balance.
There is a "dead" area of about 2,000 square miles at the bottom of lake Erie where fish and other organisms cannot live-there is no oxygen. The phenol count-refuse discharged by industries -is higher than the level recommended by the international joint commission, a body set up by Canada and the U.S.
It is doubtful whether any beach in lake Erie is fit for swimming. The turbidity and amount of dissolved salts has increased during the past few years.
The general tenor of the article is that lake Erie and lake Michigan are already polluted almost beyond repair.
The other great lakes are suffering pollution to a lesser degree, but the pollution is reaching dangerous levels. I know from friends of mine who have summer cottages on the Muskoka lakes, north of Toronto, that those lakes are also becoming polluted and their waters unfit for consumption.
There is no need to spend a great deal of time indicating the problems which arise from this. Everyone is aware of the effect on the health of people. We are all aware of the impact on our recreational facilities. There is no doubt about the impact on our natural resources, the fish in the waters and the birds that nest by those waters. There is also the impact on industry.
In short, it is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue, yet it is one we have allowed to continue. It is a man-made problem and through our lack of care we are in the process of destroying in the great lakes area one of the major natural resources of the country.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
We are now on an amendment moved this afternoon-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are on private members' hour.


David Réal Caouette: You are right. O.K.


David George Hahn: At least I am glad I know where I am this afternoon.

All we have to do to cure the problem is stop pumping sewage into the water, stop adding industrial waste to the water, stop ships from dumping their garbage and sewage into the water, and stop pleasure craft from dumping sewage into the water. On the face of it, it seems a simple problem. The mechanical solutions are simple but the ways of achieving them are not. There are many jurisdictions involved. There is much study involved. Many costs are involved.
The cost of treating all sewage dumped by municipalities into the water, and which is not now treated, would be staggering and the municipalities involved probably do not have the ready funds available quickly to undertake this work.
We will arrive at a solution by discussing the matter and being concerned with the problem, and by referring it to the council of resource ministers, something which has already been mentioned. The ten provincial resource ministers and the federal minister are going to look at this problem from the national point of view and as a result of their work I hope we will reach financial solutions involved in the problem.
Business of the House
Further, I hope that when the international joint commission has dealt with the problem of great lakes water levels it will take this matter up. And before my time expires I make one further suggestion. I hope that when the committee of the House of Commons which is currently dealing with the problem of great lakes water levels has finished its study, it will inquire into this equally important problem of the pollution of these great natural resources.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

David Vaughan Pugh: Before we adjourn could we have an indication what the business of the house will be for Monday?


William Moore Benidickson: I think all hon. members know we will carry on with the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

*
				
				
				
				
				
				*
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

			
			
			
			
			
			
[Stage Direction]

Monday, December 14, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of an editorial which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail. I could take objection to other parts of this editorial, but I should like to refer to this part which deals with me personally, and which reads as follows:
It is Canada's misfortune that the new flag was proposed at a time when the Leader of the Opposition was a man who did not scruple to pour derision on the device it was to bear, the maple leaf. The maple leaf has had a place of honour in Canada. It speaks for Canada around the world, and marks the sleeping places of all the dead of all our wars. Yet the Leader of the Opposition and the red ensign diehards of his party have mocked the maple leaf, and now they have forced its introduction by closure.
This is the flag that is to fly above us, to express our pride of nationhood: and Mr. John G. Diefenbaker has not hesitated to besmirch it with words and now with this action.
Sir, that editorial in so far as it contains those allegations is a gross perversion of the truth. I have not risen on a question of privilege of this kind in all the many years I have been here because, after all, the press always gets the last say. However, that statement cannot remain unchallenged because my last reference to this was made on December 11 as reported in Hansard at page 11045, at which time I was referring to the Prime Minister and I said:
He manufactured a false claim when he used the expression that we sneered at the maple leaf. There was nothing of that kind. Many of us on this side of the house are proud of the maple leaf, but the maple leaf as an emblem is a long way from the maple leaf as the design for a flag.
An example occurs to me as I am speaking. What about Ireland? Ireland established itself as an independent country after generations of turmoil and difficulty. It decided on a flag. The emblem of Ireland is the shamrock. Did they place the shamrock on the flag? The shamrock was a symbol, but when they built their flag they made it a flag of two colours representative of the unity of their country, orange and green. Certainly no one casts aspersions on the maple leaf. We are all
proud of it as a symbol of the nation. However, there is a great deal of difference between symbolic significance and that which goes to the heart and soul of a nation, the flag that must represent the people as a whole.
I simply say that the suggestion that at any time I cast aspersions on the maple leaf is a falsehood and an attempt apparently to misrepresent my position as being one which I have never held, do not hold now and never will hold.



PROCEDURE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour and, 1 may add, the great pleasure of presenting in English and in French the fifteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that I will move concurrence in the fifteenth report of the committee on procedure and organization, tabled this day, on Wednesday, December 16.



CANADIAN FLAG


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the notice given on Friday and in accordance with the provisions of standing order 33 I move, seconded by the Solicitor General (Mr. Mac-Naught):
That the debate on the motion for concurrence in the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, and on any amendments thereto, shall not be further adjourned.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: A flag by closure.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

Division


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of National Defence. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.



MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Thomas.
John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, at the close of the debate on Friday I had made reference to a quotation from Edmund Burke who said, and I shall read the complete last line of the quotation:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it for your opinion.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated that in his judgment Canada needs a new flag to unite the country. Does the Prime Minister feel that he has achieved that purpose? Does he believe that by force he has given Canada the flag she needed? In my opinion force can never unite any country or any people. I regret that the flag we are going to have to honour in the future will have been imposed upon the people of Canada by force through the use of closure in this house. That is not a proud beginning for a flag which we should look up to with pride.
On Friday the Prime Minister said he had support for this flag from all parties in this house. He neglected to tell the people of Canada that there is opposition to this flag from all parties in this house. I think that fact should also be made known. Opposition has been indicated toward this design by members of every party of this house, so how can the Prime Minister say this flag will unite Canada? I do not think he has proved his point.
The Prime Minister dwelt upon that point at great length, and he seemed to be proud of the fact that he was in a position where he could use force at this time. I am sure the Prime Minister is not blind to the fact that the same disintegration of unity which has taken place in this house in relation to this question has taken place across Canada in each and every province. That same disunity does exist and will continue to exist.
On an earlier occasion I suggested that the flag issue had created more factions than have ever existed before. Before this debate on the flag issue there was not one faction which supported the three maple leaves design, one which supported the single maple 20220-700J
Canadian Flag
leaf design, and another which supported a modified version of the red ensign. I suggest, therefore, that there are three more factions which have been created in this country by the flag question and debate.
How can the Prime Minister take any pleasure from his belief that the flag issue and the adoption of the single maple leaf design will unite Canada? I suggest that the attitudes expressed during the debate on this issue confirm the suggestion that this has created more disunity in Canada than any other piece of legislation placed before parliament in the history of this country. Only after the passage of time will we know the over-all effects of this flag issue. Our constituencies are represented by people of all nationalities, yet there are now more factions supporting various proposals than there have ever been.
I regret that I cannot look upon this flag with pride, even after hearing all the arguments that have been presented to this house by members not only on this side but on the other side of the house. We regret, in fact, that more members on that side of the house have not risen to state the views of their constituents. Surely, Mr. Speaker, all those members on that side who have remained silent during all the days of this debate are not representing the views of all their constituents by so doing. They have not even expressed regret that they cannot support the opinions of certain factions in their constituencies. They have not said one word in favour of the flag that has been flying over this country for a great many years. Many of us on this side of the house would like to hear them express their opinions. We wonder why they have sat silent as they have and not uttered one word.
Actually their attitude does not affect us on this side of the house. They will be responsible to their constituents and will have to answer to them for their silence on this matter. I should like to refer to a couple of newspaper editorials. I will not read all of them, but I think they express much better than I can what I am trying to get across to the house. I quote first from the Winnipeg Tribune of May 19 last:
It is this newspaper's opinion that the timing of this flag proposal is bad.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Last week the Deputy Speaker decided that editorials from newspapers commenting on the flag debate should not be read at this time. Members are here to express their own opinions and view-

Canadian Flag
points and not to give the viewpoints of editors of newspapers.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I am reading what I believe to be a true statement about this flag debate.
If the main purpose is to consolidate unity it is a peculiar approach for, as witnessed at the Legion meeting-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to be ungracious to the hon. member, but if he is reading the editorial claiming that the words of the editorial are his he is doing something indirectly which he is not allowed to do directly. Perhaps he could express the same viewpoint if he wants to do so, but certainly he should not quote the words.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I am adopting these words as my own and I think I am entitled to read them. Other members of the house have read such articles into the record.
If the main purpose is to consolidate unity it is a peculiar approach for, as witnessed at the Legion meeting, the dominant reaction is disunity.
That I believe.
Unfortunately, too, the Prime Minister's approach leaves little ground for thoughtful consideration. He asks, in effect, for a surrender of what is known for something unknown. He entertains a mystique about the price of unity which he is unable to articulate. In addition to poor timing, the method of introducing the design was odd ...
He has placed himself and his government on the record to introduce a new flag. He has rejected the proposal for a national plebiscite and insists that the issue must be decided on a free vote in the Commons.
I should like to say something more about that free vote but I do not have the time.
But then he has also added that the result would be interpreted by his government as a vote of confidence. In other words, he is prepared to fight an election on the issue. He is willing to jeopardize national unity in the hope of political advantage but he is unwilling to seek an expression of opinion in a plebiscite in which the issue would be the flag, not seats in parliament.


William Heward Grafftey: Unity by closure.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The Prime Minister claims he has pressed the issue of a national flag-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have found the citation in Beauchesne, fourth edition. It is citation 157, paragraphs 5 and 6.
5. It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.

6. On the 17th March, 1933, a member quoting a newspaper in debate was ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker who said: "The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper, an author or a book which reflects upon debate before the house, either directly or indirectly, is entirely out of order, because members are here to give their own opinion and not to quote the opinion of others. .. .Members may quote an article or a book stating facts, but a commentary on any proceeding or any discussion in the house, with the object of swinging an opinion to one side or the other, is out of order." Can. Deb. 1932-33, vol. 3, pp. 3103-4.
In view of the authority cited I am sure the hon. member will do his best to give his own personal opinion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think Your Honour will agree that it is common practice in the house to refer to newspaper editorials. This is one of the most difficult areas for the Chair to rule upon. I would say that the limitation is very narrow, in that reference cannot be made to editorials which comment on proceedings in the house, and that the citation is not so wide that reference to editorials or books or articles is precluded. They are commonly cited and have been for years by members both on the government side and on the opposition side. I would say that an editorial or article which commented upon the motivation of voting or on the procedure would infringe upon the rule, but certainly there is not and never has been a rule in the house which prevents an hon. member from citing an editorial in support of his argument. This is done regularly, and I think Your Honour has ample knowledge of that.
I submit that the limitation has to do with commenting on proceedings of the house. I suggest it would be improper for an hon. member to read an editorial stating that another hon. member was wrong in his presentation of the facts. I suggest to Your Honour that the restriction on reading editorials from newspapers is a limited and not a wide restriction. Therefore I think that, with appropriate care, the hon. member should be able to proceed under these circumstances just as all hon. members have been able to do in the past.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order just raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), following your ruling, I should like to say that, in my opinion, the hon. member who was himself, at one time, Speaker of the House of Commons should not forget that members have always been given a great deal of latitude,

even lengthy excerpts from editorials being allowed. However, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) said he was going to read a whole editorial. That is where I feel he is out of order.
If we want to read an editorial, all we have to do is to get the newspaper, but if the hon. member merely wishes to quote from it, then I think you should accept this as you have always done. But I am under the impression that this hon. member, not satisfied with having succeeded in bringing down closure, would very much like to be named, so that he could say, in his riding, that he was obliged to leave the house-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency cannot prejudge anyone's motives in this house.
Yet he is figuring that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is trying to get himself named. In that case, he is prejudging the hon. member's motives, and this is not allowed in the House of Commons. [Text]


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Monteiih:: Oh, here's the authority.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -I thought perhaps it would be wise to let hon. members opposite know there was not some glue on my seat. I recall that when the hon. member for Edmonton West occupied the Speaker's chair he did insist that articles from newspapers or letters read at length were not in order. Today the hon. member is contending that while newspaper articles reflecting on our proceedings would be inappropriate, articles reflecting on debates are acceptable. Now, proceedings are not debates; proceedings are the actual procedures that the house follows.
The hon. member is overlooking the very fact you observed, Mr. Speaker, that the ruling is quite clear in that it says newspaper articles or books which reflect upon a debate before the house, either directly or indirectly, are entirely out of order. When I drew this to your attention, sir, earlier in the debate you did allow a considerable latitude. If members are to be allowed to read newspaper articles when it is inappropriate to read speeches, they would simply substitute newspapers and editorials for their speeches. This seems to have been a preoccupation of most members opposite during this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure after all this intelligent discussion the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek sees the point and will
Canadian Flag
conform to the custom and practice we usually follow in this house by giving his own opinion, which I am sure is quite good.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I resume what I was saying I should like to say that if I had wanted to get myself named I would not have taken this long to do so. I want to say also to the hon. member of that party in the corner that at the outset of my observations on the editorial I said I was not going to read it all.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You mean that member of the fifth Social Credit party?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I do not know which one. However, I will dispense with that. I will say that in my opinion this issue is now creating disunity throughout the country, and there is more confusion about this issue than ever before.
The country has been told by the Prime Minister and the members of his party that if an election were held on this issue it would split the country and create disunity, and this was one of the reasons he adopted this method of implementing his desire. I say, too, that stubbornness is no substitute for statesmanship.
One writer has expressed the view that in the selection of a flag we should strive for some common understanding of what a flag is. We should understand what it means. One common understanding that has been evident from the speeches that have been made from both sides of the house is that we want to be Canadians. I believe the other day I made reference to a number of speeches from the various parties in this house who have said that we all want to be Canadians, whether we are designated now as French Canadians, English Canadians, Irish Canadians, Scotch Canadians or whatever. In fact this has been the common denominator throughout all these speeches. Can we not start from that point?
I should like at this time to ask the Prime Minister and the members of his party just what flag would be flying over Canada today, what conditions we would be living under today, if it had not been for Britain during the last two wars. This is something that I think a lot of us have forgotten. It is said that we who have supported the inclusion of the union jack as some part of our new Canadian flag should not refer to tradition. I cannot help but refer to tradition when I think of those things. If I came from French Canada or if I came from the province of Quebec I would say that those early explorers, those great pioneers who came from France

Canadian Flag
and settled in Quebec, should in some way be remembered by the people of Canada today for what they have done in creating this country of which we are so proud. Would we have a country like we have today if it were not for those people?
During this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have expressed our views as individuals. We have expressed our views as members of this party. We think we have expressed the views of our constituents. In fact some of us go so far as to say that we feel we have expressed the views of the majority of the people of Canada. We have been criticized in the press. We have been accused of obstruction, and apparently some members opposite think that is what we have been doing. I can say that I believe every one of us has spoken with conviction. We believe that as members of parliament we are using our judgment when we debate this very important issue, and the Prime Minister has said it is a very important issue. We have been debating this issue sincerely. I hope I will not again hear the suggestion that we have been obstructing on this issue.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for the time allotted in favour of the committee's report suggesting the maple leaf design as Canada's flag. I do this first of all because the flag that is being proposed is one which has been selected by a committee which represented all the parties in this house. This committee sat continuously for two months and made this recommendation under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten).
If we are dedicated to democratic principles, and I believe everyone in this house is so dedicated, then I believe it behooves us, after having expressed every shade of opinion that can be expressed on this subject, to let the democratic process take its course by bringing the matter to a vote and accepting the vote of this house. The maple leaf design that is being proposed is not a renunciation or a betrayal on our part of our Christian principles. Indeed, were we by a mere change of exterior symbols to cast off our traditions, our past, our Christian beliefs and everything that we hold near and dear, then certainly all those things would be very shallow indeed.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that after this debate has ended and this flag has been adopted we, as a Canadian and Christian nation, will continue to adhere to all those things that make our country great, that make the British heritage great, that

make the French heritage great, and which indeed make our civilization worth living and fighting for. Whether we fly the union jack, the red ensign, the maple leaf flag or any other symbol we shall certainly continue to practise those liberties and respect those institutions which go far deeper than mere exterior symbols. Speaking as a Quebecker I think I should be the last person in the world to want to cast off the past and not honour it, nor to honour the British institutions that have given us our freedom, especially when the motto of my province is "Je me souviens" -I remember.
The maple leaf is a true Canadian symbol. Canadians recognize it as such everywhere, and others recognize us as Canadians by the maple leaf symbol. It is instantly recognizable and identifiable as a Canadian symbol no matter where a Canadian may go throughout the world. It is a symbol which was very much alive among servicemen during the second world war. Is it not a fact that the burial places of all those brave and true Canadians who gave up their lives are marked by a maple leaf? I recall travelling throughout western Europe at the end of the second world war and seeing that the routes which were travelled by Canadian forces all over Europe were studded with and indicated by the maple leaf, the symbol that led our forces to victory and which is also the symbol of the future.
I refuse to accept that the maple leaf can, in any sense of the word, be recognized as an exclusive or narrow Quebec symbol. It has never been accepted as such. It is an all Canadian symbol. Some have said that the maple leaf flag is a concession to Quebec. If by that is meant that it is a symbol which is acceptable to Quebec then I am entirely in agreement, because it is also a symbol acceptable to all Canadians no matter what their origins may be. But, Mr. Speaker, if by stating that the maple leaf is a concession to or an appeasement of Quebec one wants to stir up differences between the racial groups in this country, then I say that attempt is most damnable and contemptible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The new flag is the symbol of the future because it expresses unity, that unity to which so many of us have paid lip service during the course of this debate. I believe that in the maple leaf Canadians of whatever origin or background may find something in common. I believe this maple leaf flag will express for Canadians, in their

own undemonstrative and taciturn way, the firm conviction that Canadians want to live together, work together and build a worthwhile nation.
If this distinctive flag can be accepted by the country without lasting bitterness and acrimony, then Canadians will have gone a long way to prove to the world that a nation such as ours, born in strife, diverse in its origins, speaking two languages and being the embodiment of two great cultures, can survive and prosper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Raymond Martineau: During the course of this debate many hard and bitter words have been spoken that it would have been better to have left unsaid. It is useless, futile and, I feel, mischievous to try at this stage to assess blame in this chamber or elsewhere. But the truth remains-and it is a bitter truth-that the embers of hatred and prejudice have been fanned, and if they should continue uncontrolled they could very well lead to disaster and the end of our nation. That is why this afternoon I approved and voted for the extreme measure that is closure; because I am firmly convinced that the continuance of this debate at this stage, after it has given rise throughout the land to so many utterances born of prejudice and hatred, could only achieve its normal course, the very destruction of this country.
It may be well to look at others and learn a lesson from history. Almost 100 years ago the United States of America, our great neighbours, today's leaders of freedom, were engaged in a murderous civil war. Fortunately, and I thank God, this has not happened in our country, and I trust and believe it will never happen. When President Lincoln, in his second inaugural address, spoke to congress in Washington, his country's murderous and bloody civil war had been raging for many years. As he addressed congress his mind must have lingered on the terrible price of that useless war that had pitted countryman against countryman, brother against brother, and which had already cost more lives than any war in modern history to that date and which, in his own words, would go on to the bitter end, even if necessary until-
-all the wealth piled by the bondsman's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn by the sword.
Lincoln urged his countrymen to strive on, to finish the work that they were engaged in,
Canadian Flag
with malice toward none and charity to all, and to bind up the nation's wounds. Yes, Mr. Speaker, to bind up the nation's wounds; that is the task to which we should now be dedicated.
We have had our debate, and I believe that in order to bind up the nation's wounds-and they are deep and grievous-we must without recrimination, if defeated in our point of view in this debate, and without undue bombasity if our point of view prevails, accept the new flag when it is unfurled; because that flag will be the symbol of our country, and our country will be as great as the respect we show to the symbol that will be ours and ours alone.
If we are not mature enough to do that, if we are not big enough to forget the division that has torn us apart, then we are not even worthy to survive; but I think the immense majority of Canadians from coast to coast will accept the flag that is truly our own, and under that flag Canada will know better and greater days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: I am
sure the English speaking people in this assembly, and those of English descent, are fully cognizant of the feelings expressed by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau). Thank God I belong to a party in which there can be differences of opinion. Thank God we have a liberal-minded party where those who have a different view can express that view.
Today, in the few minutes at my disposal, I want to put on record what other people throughout this dominion are thinking. I have in my hand a letter I received this morning from a mother who lost her son in the last war. Her son was named Cecil. I want the house to know what she has to say about the red ensign which is being debated here today as it has been for the past few weeks. She writes:
I feel Cecil fought for the protection of this flag and gave his young life for it.
I want to make this the theme of what I have to say here today. Young Cecil was about 22. He was the pilot of a Lancaster bomber and was shot down north of Berlin during the raids which were made on that city from bases in the British isles. His gunner was the son of a former member of this assembly. The entire crew lost their lives.
As it happens, this strikes home closely to me because Cecil Kindt, the pilot of that plane, was my nephew, and the person who

Canadian Flag
wrote to me is my brother's wife, or widow; my brother is dead. So it was this boy, in the flower of his youth, who lost his life flying a Lancaster bomber during those days when we did not know whether Britain would survive and when, as Churchill said, we never owed so much to so few. Have we forgotten those days? I hope not. But here is a mother who says in her letter to me:
I agree with your opinion on the flag situation. I feel Cecil fought for the protection of this flag and gave his young life for it.
Those among us who talk lightly about a flag and about choosing a flag or destroying a flag have never felt the emotion which those of us who have been through it feel. So I say to all those who would lightly throw the red ensign away, you are spreading disunity among the people of this nation. There is no doubt about that in my mind. Do those who talk so loudly now remember the days of conscription when recruits were needed, and when we constructed air bases in western Canada to provide the armed forces with the men who were required? We built airfields and trained people to man the bombers. Those airfields were used to train people who came from all parts of the world. We put our best efforts into this work. What was the flag which flew over those airfields? It was the red ensign. These are the circumstances which are deeply ingrained in those of us who oppose this change in our national flag.
To get the right flag, the flag which Canada needs, and make it an acceptable substitute for everything else is not an easy task. It has to be a discovery, and such a discovery has not yet been made. What happened was this. A pistol was held by the government at the head of the flag committee. The committee was told to bring in a report by a certain date. Well, they threw out the flag with three leaves, which made it necessary for them to come up with something else, and this was the flag with one leaf.
That is how we got the flag which is now presented to us. It is a political flag. It is not a flag which will unify the people of Canada. If members opposite and those who think like them cannot see the possible evil effects of their action, and follow through with the result that disunity is created in this country, the blame will rest on their shoulders.
Let me say to those who write editorials condemning the Conservative party, and those in other parties who support the red ensign, that we are expressing a point of view which is held by a large section of the people of this nation, possibly 60 per cent or more.

They have never been given an opportunity to express their views on this issue by way of a plebiscite. They never knew there would be a flag put forward consisting of one maple leaf on a white background until just a month ago.
I do not believe this is the way to choose a flag. We all know this design has come about because the committee was working under orders to produce. You cannot produce a flag which will be ingrained in the hearts of the people by following this approach. The government and its supporters are relying on having this flag approved so they can go out and sell it to the people. They will go out and support it-we will all support it, because it will be the Canadian flag. In other words it is a selling job they will be doing from now on, trusting that in a generation or two it will be as acceptable as the red ensign.
Well, I do not think this will happen. I think the disunity which will be created in this country as a result of the introduction of this particular flag will continue for years to come.
I do not believe closure should be used in order to obtain a flag. Nor do I believe that an emblem should be selected as the flag of this nation. Show me how many countries in the world, having distinctive emblems such as the shamrock, the rose, the thistle and so on, to name only a few emblems of the British isles, have chosen to place these emblems on their national flags. The people are proud of those emblems. They serve in just the same way as the maple leaf serves us. We are proud of our maple leaf. None of us has talked against it, but after all it is only an emblem. None of the countries in the British isles has its emblem on its flag. The Irish flag does not carry the shamrock, nor does the Scottish flag carry the thistle.
Therefore it is not necessary, neither is it desirable, to have a flag bearing an emblem. But when you are up against the gun and the head of a party tells a committee to bring in a report on the kind of flag we should have, it is simply imposing an impossible task upon that committee. Therefore, since the mistake in handling the matter in this way was made, the blame for the adoption of this flag and the mistake in connection with it lies squarely at the feet of this government.


Mrs. Margaret Konaniz (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the flag committee I have felt it my duty to faithfully sit in this house during the last two weeks

and listen to all the remarks which have been made by different members. However, the one thing which has upset me more than anything else has been the insinuations which have been made regarding the intelligence of the members of that committee. I have found no one has given us any credit for being bright enough, after being together for six weeks studying the flag issue, to emerge from the committee wiser than when we went in. Quite frankly, I think I can say for every other member as well as myself that we were keenly aware of our responsibilities. We were determined to be open minded. We were willing to listen to other people's opinions and to permit full participation in all our discussions. I think each one of us was ready to study the whole issue and certainly to be non-partisan.
As a westerner I think I was probably a little more conscious than were some other hon. members of the people who come from many lands to make up our country, besides those who are the descendants of our founding races. I have to admit that as a westerner I am fiercely proud of Canada. I have had the most marvellous opportunities for travel on behalf of the United Nations association through UNICEF, which travels have taken me through nine countries of Africa and South America; and every time I come home knowing that Canada is the finest land in this whole wide world.
I believe there has been in our past too little, not too much, national pride in our country. During the six weeks that I sat on that committee I was made very conscious of how little I knew of our early Canadian history, and I gleaned much in the way of knowledge from the different witnesses we heard. I wondered why this was, and one day I asked a witness when it was that we really began to teach Canadian history in our schools. To my amazement I found that this was only in approximately 1920.
It seems to me that we have all acquired an appreciation of the accomplishments of our nation's builders. I think of the missionary martyrs, I think of the voyageurs, and I think of the explorers and their extraordinary accomplishments. As I look at this whole issue now I really feel that our lack of knowledge of Canadian history, particularly our early Canadian history, is one of the causes of our growing pains today.
Now about the people who make up this country, this mosaic of Canada; I found this summer that I was really very vague about the early settlers of Newfoundland. I had
Canadian Flag
the privilege of going down there and spending a day with one hon. member going through his constituency, and it suddenly dawned on me as I read the different names of the little fishing towns built by the early settlers in Newfoundland-and I think of Portugal Cove, Bonavista, Port au Port, Ireland's Eye-and as I stopped and talked to the people in the different villages, that although confederation meant so much to them they were still very proud of their heritage.
Then, of course, we all know that the French, the English, the Irish and the Scottish are the descendants of the early settlers of what was Upper and Lower Canada and the maritimes. But at the time of confederation easterners thought western Canada was suitable only for the Indians. I believe some people still feel that way, but as a westerner I can assure them that they have a lot to learn. The fur traders were very jealous of their rights, and I think they did their best for a while to keep people out of this area of Canada; because with the farmers moving in it meant that the fur traders would have to move out. But very soon the early travellers came back to eastern Canada with stories about the rich soil of western Canada, and pioneers, intrigued by these stories, soon flooded into this part of the country and we had a new province in 1870, Manitoba.
However, the vision of a dominion from sea to sea was really only sparked at the time two British colonies, Vancouver island and British Columbia, joined together. Some people thought it was foolish to talk of a territory so far away, but with the promise of a railroad to be built within ten years a new province was added in 1871, British Columbia. This railroad was built through wild, barren land, almost bottomless swamps, muskeg, and was blasted through great mountains. This was all made possible by the Irish, the Swedish, the Italian and the Chinese individuals who had strong backs and were willing to work. It was then that the settlers poured into this vast area, coming from eastern Canada, Great Britain, the United States, Russia, Poland, the Ukraine, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, China and Japan. And there was land for all of them. Six thousand Mennonites settled on the banks of the Red river, and we will always know that this is their community when we see names like Steinbach, Stoney Brook, Rosen-feld and Field of Roses.

Canadian Flag
Then the farming Icelanders built new homes around lake Gimli, which is a beautiful place. They proved that people knowing no English and unacquainted with Canadian laws and customs could prosper in a new land if they were willing to work. With their spirit of adventure and their strong sense of freedom and attachment to their cultural heritage, the Ukrainians too have added much to our national way of life, and their contributions to community affairs have placed us all in their debt.
Let us be honest with ourselves at this time, sir. Surely today we are trying to preserve a nation in which people of many diverse backgrounds may feel at home. Let us be united by a common pride and a common dedication to the progress of Canada.
When thinking of all these other groups we must not fail to remember the first settlers of our country. As one travels west through places such as Medicine Hat, Sturgeon Creek and Yellowknife he is always reminded of those settlers. I came across a beautiful little verse the other day by Richard Huntington, as follows:
The memory of the red man,
How can it pass away?
While his names of music linger On each mount and stream and bay?
Let us not forget our Eskimos and the name that was given to them by the Indians. About a month ago there was an art exhibit in the air terminal at Winnipeg which gave everyone the opportunity of observing the skills of these people and the articles which they offer to us who live below the Arctic circle. While I was a member of the flag committee I thought of those people, and I remembered how last fall I had read of a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the chamber of commerce; and let me remind hon. members that the chamber of commerce has approximately 900 affiliates in this country. That resolution read in part as follows:
Parliament has not formerly adopted a distinctive national flag and Canadian public opinion polls continually record significant majorities favouring a distinctive national flag with the nation's youth expressing an overwhelming preference for such a flag. A distinctive national flag would be a strong unifying influence consistent with the status of whole nationhood.
For emphasis I should like to bring attention to the word "unifying" in that resolution.
During our flag committee meetings, as you have all heard so often before, we learned about flags; and when I went home to my constituency about two weeks ago someone suggested that I should wear a steel helmet. I must now state that I had no difficulty in
[Mrs. Konantz.l
explaining what the new distinctive flag was all about. It really boiled down to the fact that I only had to use two sentences to tell them that it was something to which we could give a place of honour; that the upper staff quarter of any flag is the place of honour, and that by placing the union jack in that position, which it occupies on the red ensign, we would be putting it in the place of honour. I believe the argument against the use of the union jack does not suggest any disrespect for that flag, but is made because the union jack does not represent Canada but is the official flag of the United Kingdom. It has been said over and over again that by flying the red ensign the interpretation might be made that Canada is still subject to the United Kingdom, which is denied by Canadians. So I say simply that-


David Vaughan Pugh: May I ask the hon. member a question? I take it that when you are talking about the red ensign you are referring to the Canadian red ensign?


Margaret McTavish Konantz: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking of the Canadian red ensign. It is simply a matter of self respect on our part to adopt a flag which will proclaim to the world that Canada is Canada and is not subject to any other country.
When it came time for the members of the flag committee to declare themselves and vote, I voted against the plebiscite for the simple reason that I felt it would add more confusion to this whole question and would not prove to be of any use in this country. If I had more time I could give a perfect example of just how confused a group can become about what is our official Canadian flag. However, as my time is running out I am afraid I cannot go into that dissertation. I voted against the Canadian red ensign as a national flag because Canada is an independent state.
I learned from the experts who appeared before the committee that our national colours were red on white. At the time we voted for or against adoption of the three maple leaves design versus the one maple leaf design I was reminded of the Christmas day I spent in Hong Kong in 1958. We all know that Christmas is a sad day in Hong Kong because on that day in 1941 it surrendered to the Japanese. I decided on Christmas morning to visit the Sai Wang cemetery and place a wreath on our memorial. I arranged to get the wreath through our Canadian trade commissioner, and it really was a most effective one. It stood about four feet high, was circular of solid white chrysanthemums with

a single red maple leaf made of carnations in the centre.
I went to the cemetery, which is on a beautiful hillside overlooking a magnificent bay, and on my arrival there I found a little Chinese gardener in his bare feet clipping the rose bushes and cleaning up the leaves which had fallen during the night. I walked down the great stairs and placed the wreath on the cenotaph, and then wandered among the headstones on the graves of our Winnipeg Grenadiers. I had not known very many mothers who had lost loved ones who are buried there, but one thing I will always remember is that on each headstone there was a single maple leaf, and I knew that when the time came for me to vote for the one leaf design versus the three leaves design I would vote for the single maple leaf.
Surely this flag, which the committee has recommended to this house, will send out the message we all want to give to the world; that this is Canada, this is a flag which symbolizes our freedom and unity, and a flag which we will fly proudly among the flags of the 114 members of the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, I plead with all the members of this house to put an end to this debate. Let us behave like reasonable and mature adults and bring this question once and for all to a decision. I am sure that is what our constituents expect of us.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. lady who represents Winnipeg South for entering this debate even at this late hour. I was pleased to hear her say that as a member of the flag committee her heart went out to the Canadian Eskimo people, and that for that reason she was able to make a choice as to a flag design. At this time I should like to invite that hon. lady, as I have done previously, to come with me to the great treeless plains of the Canadian Northwest Territories and explain to the Eskimo people what the maple leaf symbol is all about.
Because she is a convincing speaker I was also interested that she should make a plea to us to end the debate at this particular juncture, this after her own Prime Minister and his cohorts in the cabinet had decided to invoke closure to get a new flag by Christmas if they could not do so otherwise.
I had not intended to make any more comments on this matter, but the speech of the Prime Minister and more particularly of the government house leader on Friday prompted me to put a few more remarks on the record. I was particularly interested in the frequent 20220-7011
Canadian Flag
references the Prime Minister made to the free and full debate that had gone on, and I want to put on record what he said. As found on page 11036 of Hansard he said:
Of course free and full discussion is absolutely essential to the parliamentary process-
Again, as found on page 11037 he said:
-so I hope this parliament will be given the right to exercise its fundamental duty; that is, to decide after a full and free debate.
Then that other expert on procedure, the government house leader, had this to say as found on page 11053, when he was giving notice of the closure motion with such obvious glee:
In the circumstances, and to prevent a mockery being made of parliament, I have no alternative but to take the action I now propose to take.
Let us take a look at what the Liberals mean when they say "free and full debate". I took a cue from that little Ralliement Credi-tistes member, the hon. member for Lapointe, and I made an investigation of Hansard to see how the debate had been going. Let us find out what the Prime Minister means when he says "full and free debate". If you will look at the speeches made by members of the official opposition in the 10 days the committee report has been under discussion you will find that on a total of 661 occasions members opposite and their allies in the Ralliement Creditistes interrupted those of us who were trying to make sincere speeches in the house. These are 661 interruptions where the member doing the interrupting is identified by name. If one were to include all the interjections and smart remarks by way of harassment of speakers from this party by those members who are impatient with the democratic process, the closure kids, the number of such interruptions would be well over 1,000.
I am glad the government house leader is here, because his hands are not completely clean in this regard. The shameful thing is that 98 of these specious questions of order and privilege can be attributed to the Prime Minister and other ministers of the crown. I should like to put that on the record. The government house leader interrupted the debate 18 times in 10 days with specious points of order and questions of privilege or other questions. I can see why he might have done so with the Prime Minister sitting to his right. However, the Prime Minister was only in the house to hear three speeches. But his record is not so hot, either.

Canadian Flag


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should like to take the opportunity at this moment to interrupt the hon. member to make a slight point of order. I direct his attention to the fact that his speech should be limited to the amendment before us at the present time. It seems to me that some of his remarks relate more particularly to the question of procedure in the house, which is really not germane to the subject we are considering now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you, quite respectfully, to see that the rules are applied on both sides of the house. We listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg South give us a story of Canadian history and a visit to Hong Kong without anyone interrupting or raising any point of order. I think there should be complete freedom of speech in the house today, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Certainly the Chair is prepared to recognize the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but even though this is perhaps a special day and a special debate I do not feel that the rules of relevancy can be just thrown overboard. There is a specific matter before the house now for its consideration, the amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's for the adoption of the committee report, and I would urge the hon. member to give that his primary consideration.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. Let us not forget that on Friday the Prime Minister was speaking to the amendment, and I am now discussing what the Prime Minister apparently means by full and free debate. I am trying to summarize the debate to date to see if it measures up to his standard. The closest the hon. lady got to the red ensign was a discussion of the Red river settlers, but none of us on this side objected to that. The government house leader interrupted 18 times and the Prime Minister interrupted nine times even though he was only in the house for three speeches. That professional interrupter, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis), interrupted 35 times on points of order and questions of privilege, and he only returned to the house from his world wide tour on December 3. Members can see the kind of record he has in this regard.
I will conclude my remarks along this line, Mr. Speaker, by stating that the ministers of the crown, those great advocates of full and free debate, interrupted speakers on this side
[Mr. Rheaume.1
of the house 98 times in the course of 10 days, and together with their allies interrupted a total of 661 times. Is this some sort of Grit definition of full and free debate?
The newspapermen of the country have a responsibility in terms of reporting this debate, but press reports have not indicated that speakers from the official opposition attempting to make their cases have been harassed and heckled. How many of these press reporters-they can live with this responsibility when the red ensign comes down-reported that 661 points of order, specious questions of privilege and other interruptions were made? The hon. member for Lapointe got up and talked about the number of speeches that had been made, and the members of the press gallery were very good about giving us the running score in that regard. We had a right to expect impartial coverage of the flag debate by the press.
Let us take a look at what a free vote means. Every member in this chamber from the province of Quebec, regardless of where he sits in the house, supports the new maple leaf flag in no uncertain terms. We know this is so. I admire and respect them for doing so, and I support their right to do so. I believe these members from Quebec have set an example that will shine forth whenever parliamentary freedom of speech is in question.
On the other hand, I have nothing but scorn and sympathy for those members who have sold out and who have refused to be as honest so far as the other side of the issue is concerned. If anyone is in doubt about how they have sold out I invite them to read the speech of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) who described precisely how it was being done among the Liberal party members. I have talked to Liberal backbenchers myself and I know the threats that were made against them. Let it be said about them in the years to come that when the moment came to stand up and be counted according to their consciences, they chose instead to swim downstream.
In his speech on Friday the Prime Minister said to members of the opposition "Come on, let us all rally around the flag once it is adopted and help me to hoist the new flag on the flagstaffs of this country". What he was really saying was "Come on, boys, help me tear down the one we have".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I can guarantee he will get no help from me or from anyone who thinks as I do in the process of destroying what we have had when he has not made a case for the necessity of doing so. In terms of the new one, let this be on the record and let it be clear; should a new flag be adopted for this country I will do my best to promote it throughout the far northern reaches of our country.
The northerly part of this country has known no other flag but the red ensign, because it has been only during the last few years that we have ventured that far. This will not be an easy task for me. It will be made much more difficult because my heart will not be in it. The Indian and Eskimo people in the far reaches of this country have a way of spotting insincerity. They were happy with the flag they had. For generations they have received their treaty payments, have gone to school and received their help from the mother country under this emblem.
One thing about the Indian and Eskimo people is this, Mr. Speaker. Before they change something they have to have a good reason for it. They do not discard the old ways lightly because someone has a whim or is capricious and says it would be a good thing to do. They know intuitively that the pursuit of novelty, the pursuit of change for its own sake, can lead only to social anarchy.
No one in this chamber will work harder or longer to promote loyalty, duty and devotion to whatever flag is chosen by this chamber. Nor will I, in the meantime, do anything to discredit the symbol that may be on that flag that is chosen. However, do not expect me for one second to assist in the destruction of what we have. I want to state and to emphasize, with all the eloquence I can muster, that the Prime Minister of this country can never again in my eyes and in my opinion pass himself off as a person who is willing to subordinate his personal whim to the greater and more enduring needs of this country.
The Prime Minister and his house have said "We will use closure to get a flag". They say, as they have said before, "Who shall stop us if we want to do something?" Well, I say to the Prime Minister and to his friends on the front benches, there are quite a few other things I should like to see stopped in this country before debate in this House of Commons. I would, first and foremost, like to see a stop to the highly questionable conduct
Canadian Flag
of his own ministers. I have read the code of ethics that was written for him-


Mr. Sharp:: Order.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I can understand why the Minister of Trade and Commerce is a little nervous, but he has not been named yet. I can say this to him and to the house: any minister with any self respect would have resigned when he got a letter saying in future honesty would be the best policy. What I want to see stopped and what Canadians want to see stopped is the feeling that if you are-


Mitchell William Sharp: Order.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: -a Liberal cabinet minister you can do anything you want in this country; no one shall stop you.


Maurice John Moreau: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I have not the time to permit questions. I have read the code of ethics that was issued in order to help ministers understand what is expected of them. This is something I had thought everyone knew well before he was ever elected as a member of parliament, but apparently this is not the case. It says that in order that honesty and impartiality may be beyond doubt, the members of ministers' staffs, equally with ministers, must not place themselves in a position where they are under obligation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will realize that the Chair has some difficulty in relating the subject matter under discussion to his remarks. There may be a relationship between the two matters but it is certainly not apparent to the Chair. Perhaps the hon. member would want to bring his remarks within the ambit of the matter we are supposed to be considering now.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I certainly will. What I was attempting to do was to indicate that many of us, including the Prime Minister, want to see closure put on the kind of conduct that has evidently been occurring, not on debate in this house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. With respect may I suggest that this argument may be very valuable in another debate, but it seems to the Chair that the question before the house is not the subject matter of rule 33 of the standing orders on which there was a vote in this house this afternoon. Since that matter was disposed of, it cannot be raised in debate at this time. To that extent, therefore, the hon. member's remarks would not

Canadian Flag
appear to be related to the subject matter before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a point of order. Surely Your Honour is not ruling that after the, I was going to say, outrageous course followed by the government in introducing closure in order to bring in a flag, you are going to deny us the right to say anything in criticism of this government on the subject of bringing in closure. Surely you do not say that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The only thing the Chair is doing is referring to the rules that require hon. members on both sides of the house to be relevant in their remarks, and which indicate that once a matter has been disposed of by a vote there can be no reflection on that vote.


John George Diefenbaker: I must say I am usually very co-operative in this connection, and I intend to be in my position as an officer of this house, but if Your Honour is endeavouring to rule that our mouths are to be shut in criticism of this government for what it did to parliament and its institutions this afternoon, you are going to have quite a lot of difficulty.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I should like to bring to the attention of the right hon. gentleman opposite, and the hon. member for Yukon, that the motion for closure brought in by the government was voted upon by the house and sustained.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; may I suggest to hon. members that the point is not before the house. The suggestion made by the Chair was that the remarks made by the hon. member for Northwest Territories did not appear to be relevant to the amendment. The hon. member appeared, I believe, to want to follow this suggestion made by the Chair.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I should like to speak to the point of order. The hon. member for York-Scarborough has referred to the hon. member for Yukon. I should like to call his attention to the fact that if he would spend more time on this side of the river rather than over in Hull, he would know that the hon. member for Yukon is not speaking.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to all hon. members-would the hon. member kindly resume his seat?


Maurice John Moreau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Scarborough on a question of privilege.


Maurice John Moreau: I should like first of all to apologize to the hon. member for Northwest Territories for referring to him as the hon. member for Yukon. I should like to point out that my conduct in going over the river to Hull, as the hon. member has just stated, requires no defence. My attendance in this house is as good as his.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps both the point of order and the question of privilege are not relevant to the matter under debate. I suggest we give the hon. member for Northwest Territories an opportunity to pursue his remarks.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I accept the apology of the hon. member for York-Scarborough. However, there is no insult in being identified in this chamber, either purposely or mistakenly, with the hon. member for Yukon.
What I was attempting to say, Mr. Speaker, and apparently it was not obvious to the Chair, was not whether or not closure should have been invoked, because the house has already decided on that, but to ask why this government would be so anxious to institute closure. What is it with which they want to distract the attention of Canadians? I suggest that the new flag, the single maple leaf with which the ministry will hide its nakedness, is the reason for closure being introduced at this point.
In the short time left to me-and I do not know how much that is as there have been so many interruptions and points of order- I wish to put on the record a letter which I received today from a woman in Winnipeg. She may even live in Winnipeg South, but at any rate her name is Rose Cowan. In her letter she writes:
On May 17th this year, we were guests at the memorial service for the war dead, in Winnipeg, when Mr. Pearson, instead of opening this convention.. .with a prayer and a few dignified words, unveiled his new maple leaf flag instead, causing much disturbance and upset feelings. My husband is a veteran of world war II and both of us have lost loved ones in that dreadful fray, so we felt really unhappy. I came away with tears in my eyes, and knew then that this flag issue should never never have been brought up. It is the kind of thing which splits a country from sea to sea, and does no good at all. It is an emotional thing-and emotional things inflame. Somebody has given Mr. Pearson very bad advice.
On the basis of a letter like that from a woman who is obviously sincere, I feel that if the Prime Minister and his cohorts use closure to stifle this kind of feeling, even

if expressed by only one citizen, they are depriving that citizen of something valuable, and it would be better had they never brought this divisive issue before the country.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonlon-Slrathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the fight on the flag has been a long one, and we can see the end in sight. The amendment before us deals with the red ensign and much of the debate, as well as public comment, has been to the effect, "Why do you keep fighting on? Can't you see you are going to lose the battle? Can't you see you are going to have a new flag? Why hold up the work of parliament?" I think it is time something was put on the record to indicate exactly why we fight.
I have never been one of those who think the most important question in a fight is, how much strength have you got on your side? I think the question is, how much right is on your side? I am sure members of parliament are called honourable members because we all like to think our duty is to fight for the right, and to fight against that which we think is wrong. On many occasions we have said, and we continue to believe, that what is being done in changing our national flag is wrong, and the way in which it is being done is wrong. Therefore it is our duty to fight. I am sure the question is not how long are the odds against us, but how good and sincere is our cause. I am not concerned with whether defeat in the end is certain. I am concerned that we do not give up a fight when we are on the side of the right.
I am aware there may be a certain amount of ill feeling among certain sections of the public, and I am aware that the press has been dealing with what it calls our stubborn resistance to inevitable defeat. I am quite prepared to bear any punishment that public opinion may bring on me because members of the public fail to understand that I am not willing to give up a fight just because I may be defeated in the end.
Perhaps this is due to my Irish heritage and background. I am sure that if hon. members would only contemplate Irish history for a little while; if they would realize the years of battle, the number of lives lost, the amount of persecution, the fearful odds, the innumerable defeats, they would begin to get some comprehension of why we on this side of the house think it is an honourable thing to fight, no matter how often other hon. members may believe we should realize it is a foolish battle.
Canadian Flag
I hope my constituents will be able to look beyond the writing in the newspapers, which seem concerned only with the fact that this is a long fight. I hope they will realize it is a fight that must be carried on. I am aware that public opinion seems to have forgotten it is the government which could have broken off the fight at any time. We are in the position, I think, of being deceived that there is no honourable retreat and that if we are defeated we go down fighting.
Perhaps I am a little preoccupied with the idea of fighting and keeping on fighting because the parliament of Canada has today lost a truly great fighter. The dean of the parliament of Canada, Senator Byron Horner, died in hospital in Saskatoon today, and I am sure anyone who knew and loved him as I did knows of his long and valued service to the parliament of Canada, and knows that one of his predominant traits was to fight. He was a great and gallant fighter, and I think it can truthfully be said that we have all lost a very inspiring example, now that he has gone after so many years of service.
I am sure I echo the sentiments of all hon. members of this house when I extend to our two colleagues, the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), our heartfelt sympathy on the loss of their father, and our sympathy to Mrs. Horner and the rest of the family. I am sure that his 32 years of dedicated service to parliament is one of the noblest and most gallant records of public service we have seen in our lifetime, or are likely to see for a long time.
I think it was when I first met him when I came to parliament that I realized how necessary it is for members of parliament to have courage. Perhaps sometimes some of us get a little too stubborn, but we are always too apt to be swayed by public opinion, by early, adverse reports in the newspapers, and by the contemplation of occasional fearful odds against us. I think I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Senator Horner because very early he convinced me that one of the greatest attributes a member of parliament could have is personal courage to stand up for what he believes.
I would like to refer to one or two comments made in the house today. I think it was the hon. member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue who mentioned the word "democracy," and the hon. member for Winnipeg South said let democracy have its way and bring the matter to a vote. There is something I believe people in this country are often

Canadian Flag
prone to forget. I do not deny that rule by majority is what is commonly thought to be the essence of democracy, but those of us who treasure personal liberty, those of us who feel we have a right to be personally indiscreet sometimes in our talk, if we so wish, realize that rule by majority is one more way of rule by force.
That is how rule by democracy came about; the masses, because of their great weight of numbers, were able to bring sufficient force to bear. I think we should realize this and remember it from time to time. I like to mention once in a while that in my opinion the crowning glory of democracy is not just rule by the majority; it is respect for the rights of minorities and for personal liberty. In this case, in this flag debate fight, I have never been convinced that the majority wants the new flag; I have never been convinced that the majority wants any new flag at this time. I have not seen enough evidence to be sure there was any public outcry or demand for a change in our national flag. I am not sure I would have chosen to continue to battle against the proposal of the government had I been so convinced.
The red ensign is a symbol which means so much to so many people in this country that I firmly believe those who wish to retain it have a right to have their views expressed and fought for. I believe that any member who wishes to speak out in defence of this right has a duty to make sure that he fights for it to the best of his ability.
My own personal view on the flag was expressed in this house two or three years ago, when I said I was not very greatly concerned; I was satisfied with the Canadian red ensign and could see no great reason for changing it, but did not think I would fuss too much if it were changed. If my attitude in this regard has altered I can only say it is because of the manner in which this issue has been handled. I am confident that the most ardent red ensign supporters could have been won over to a great extent; that most of them, if they had been properly approached and if the matter had been handled in a diplomatic way, would have been willing to make a great many concessions.
It has always seemed to me that the argument as to whether or not this question was handled properly can be settled by merely taking a look at the way in which the matter was handled in 1945-46. At that time the issue was not introduced in a political way, and the report of the committee which was set up was almost unanimous; 23 out of 24,

I think. Remember, this was at the close of a great war, at a time when we had every reason to believe that the patriotic feelings of Canadian citizens were still at a high pitch and when our people had every reason to feel proud of the contribution this nation had made in maintaining democracy and securing freedom for so many countries of the world. One would have to look hard to find any more honest expression of Canadian opinion at that time than the unbiased, soulsearching work of that committee.
This record alone is enough to explain why we on this side have fought so long and sometimes so bitterly over the different flags which the government has from time to time suggested we approve. Who can say that we are now just being stubborn? Who can say that we do not have good and sufficient reason for feeling bitter about the flag which the Prime Minister has so eloquently said should be the symbol of national unity? I wonder why we could not have allowed this question to stand for a while, even after the initial mistake had been made, until tempers had cooled, until the people had had a little time in which to get used to the idea. I for one have not been in any hurry to see forced upon this country a flag which, initially at least, can only stand as a symbol of political manoeuvring, or of political bungling on the part of the government; a proposition which obviously shows a determination to ram down the throats of the electors of this country a flag which no one even on the government benches brought forward as an idea more than a month or two ago.
I suggest that the method used in seeking the adoption of this flag cannot easily be separated from the design which has been chosen. It is not a question of what we are asking the people of this country to do. It is a question of human frailty, of human understanding and, perhaps, our understanding that Canadians are human. I am sure that most loyal Canadians when they look at the flag will not wish to remember the method by which it was brought in, the ill conceived strategy and the bludgeon used to make sure they got it. But I am sure most people will not be able to dissociate these things from the flag when they look at it. It is the eleventh hour, but I suggest to the government that the damage is not yet fatal. It is still not too late for them to put this motion aside and think it over for a while.
There is an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune which I think should be read by other editors across Canada. No matter what else

is done, all newspaper editors in this country should try to set the people straight on what the fight is about in this house. The question is not whether Canadians should get another flag. Nor is the question whether parliament should get on with other business, at least as far as the opposition is concerned. What is causing the unease and dissatisfaction in the public mind based on the oft repeated assertion that parliament is wasting its time because the opposition is filibustering? The point is that if you have a duty to fight what is wrong, you have a duty to keep on fighting.
If the government persists in a course of conduct which is wrong, it is difficult for me to understand why the newspapers have not told the simple truth over and over again. It is that the government has control over the order of business; the government can bring in any other business which it believes to have priority at any time it wishes to do so. If there has been a day wasted, or spent, in this house, as you choose to look at it, on the flag question it is because the government chose to spend or waste that day.
When I finally get a chance to get back to my constituency I intend to make it clear to my political supporters or foes that our so-called filibuster in this house did not take place just because our party leader wanted to retain the red ensign, or because people on this side of the house wanted to talk. I intend to take my full share of credit by saying I wanted that fight kept on because I refused to quit when I felt I was on the side of the right.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, in rising this afternoon to participate in this debate and speak to the amendment, may I say how happy and proud I am to take part in the debate at this time. May I say too, Mr. Speaker, that I have enjoyed your guidance throughout the debate and I hope you may continue to occupy the chair for a few more hours.
With regard to the amendment to substitute the red ensign, as it is commonly called, for the single maple leaf flag, may I say that I realize the hon. member who moved the amendment, the hon. member for Middlesex West, did so sincerely and proudly as a last ditch stand, fighting for something he thought entirely right and for which many of us have fought in the days, weeks and months past. I think there may also have been in his mind, and in the minds of others in this chamber, the thought that there still might be a chance for a compromise to be made.
Canadian Flag
This, Mr. Speaker, is the reason I rise once again to speak in this debate. I know it is late, and in the face of closure our hours are numbered and our debate is limited. But I still think there is some hope for a compromise, and in this connection I should like to set out my reasons for thinking this is the case.
Much has been said throughout this debate, and many people have said there is nothing new to be said. I do not pretend that I have anything specifically new to offer, but in the course of my remarks I do wish to call attention to some aspects of the symbols we are discussing under this amendment. Speaking of symbols, this is a particular time of the year when we honour certain specific symbols; it is a time when we are particularly aware of certain symbols.
Today we are facing closure in this house, this having been brought on by the government. If I may wonder a little for a moment, the other day I heard the Prime Minister emphasize the fact that his entire cabinet approved of this step. I wondered at the time whether that was so, because only a few days earlier a representative segment of the press had this to say:
Surely never again will the Prime Minister have quite the same confidence in them as he did before. The face of power, shown above, is now a partisan political face, far removed from any face that can speak for country above party.
I do not want to detail what has been said previously, but when speaking before about the red ensign I did say that when a government has the record this government has, surely the Canadian nation should not be made to accept a new flag by this means, albeit a distinctive flag which many of us have previously admitted we should like to see. To me, closure is not democratic.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, I should like to say something about emblems. Before this debate terminates, as I have said, it is still my hope that it is not too late to reach some compromise; but if not, when the time comes to haul down the flag of which so many of us have spoken and for which so many of us have fought, having received piles of correspondence from people in every area of the country, then will be the time to think of symbols.
As I said earlier, this is a certain time of the year when we are particularly prone to symbols. Some of us have wreaths on our doors. Nearly all of us embrace some symbol of this time of year, a tree or a cross. But do we forget that our so-called ties with

Canadian Flag
Britain go deeper than any symbols related to a specific country? I need not remind the members of this house or the Canadian public that the crosses on their flag are Christian symbols. So I emphasize that we should try once more to reach a compromise. Compromises have been reached before in democratic parliaments. I ask, where are those parliaments today, Mr. Speaker?
Some people have said that democracy cannot work in this way. In my opinion this is the way in which democracy must work or it cannot survive. That is what I meant a moment ago when I tried to point out that some countries in this world have forgotten about the past and even the present, and have looked only to the future, and as a result today they do not exist as autonomous bodies. I am not drawing any inferences in this regard, but I would ask the question whether, by destroying this present symbol, which is what we will do if this amendment is not accepted, we are sure we will not destroy our national unity.
If the procedure now suggested is carried forward by this house, will we be doing something to enhance national unity and the national economy? Frankly I seriously doubt that we will be doing that.
The Prime Minister is a man well noted for compromise and for his ability to settle contentious issues. Has he suddenly changed his method of operation? I followed his actions very closely when he was acting in the role of a statesman and mediator, and often commended him for the headway he was able to make. Why does the Prime Minister now, in spite of his enviable record for compromise, resort to this kind of action?
I have not been successful in finding one member in my constituency who is not willing to accept a truly distinctive national flag. I have not received one letter from an individual in Canada who is not willing to accept such a flag. Nor do I believe there is one member in this chamber who would seriously oppose the adoption of a distinctive Canadian national flag. Therefore, the only real question to be answered is, what shall be the distinctive Canadian national flag?
Many Indian people live in my constituency, and there are a great many others living in various other sections of this country. No one can refer to these people as other than truly Canadian. What do they think about the flag proposed at this eleventh hour? One need only talk to one or two in any section of the country to discover what they
[Mr. GundlockJ
think about this flag. Without relating my remarks specifically to the union jack as being the commonwealth flag, or the flag of Britain, I must state that past Canadian emblems and symbols have a different meaning for Indian people-who possess a greater degree of sensibility than apparently some of us here in this house possess-than they have for the rest of us. The Indian people remember the solemn promises made at the time of the signing of treaties, and associate these symbols with an allegiance to the Queen, the great white mother. They hold the same feelings today, and one can well imagine what they will think about a government which, by force or by any other means, tears down these symbols and casts them aside. The government should give serious consideration to the thoughts of these Indian people about the flag they intend to tear down.
Some time ago I attempted to point out that the relationship between a national flag and the feelings of the Indian people is not something which can be associated with the commonwealth or with Britain itself, but is directly related to symbolic feelings and treaties. The crosses on the flag are not merely crosses or symbols of a country, but Christian crosses which many of us do not want to see removed and replaced by a mere symbol, and I refer to the maple leaf. One can well understand what the Indian people will think about this government and this parliament in its action to remove this flag as a symbol of allegiance and promise.
I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong and the record shows otherwise, but I believe on the very first day of this debate a proposition was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, and repeated again several days ago as a last ditch stand, in favour of compromise. Before moving to bring down the symbols which mean so much to the people of this country, I urge the Prime Minister and the government to give serious thought to the results of that action.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on this historic occasion when we are debating an amendment to a motion concerning our flag it must be obvious to us all that we are under the pressure of closure. This puts a bad taste in our mouths which will remain for a considerable period of time. The Prime Minister, while speaking to this amendment now under discussion, said it was parliament's right to make a decision on this issue. I think his words were that this is an issue which the government and parliament

must decide. I should like to place clearly and unmistakably on the record our reaction to the government's procedure on this issue.
Politics involves the art of getting along, and the art of governing lies in the ability to bring together divergent groups. In this regard the Prime Minister and the government have failed the country. This issue has not been brought along in that way so that the people of Canada are united. We have all been aware of the various groups with various opinions which exist in this country, and we as a party have tried to give the right to every individual to have a voice on this issue. Having failed in that regard, by failing in our attempts to persuade the government to settle the issue by plebiscite, we commenced to move a series of amendments to the main motion in order that there may be some indication of the divergence of opinion on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that in the very early stages of this debate, in my own case on August 20 at a time when I knew there had been discussions at the leadership level as to the advisability of referring this matter to a committee of the house, four basic conditions to the sensible completion of the work of the committee were put foward. Those four issues were ignored and, as I suggested earlier during another stage of this debate, the members of that committee voted as party members. They did not make an effort to bring the main parties together, and that was a necessary ingredient to the compromise.
Now we have the amendment respecting the red ensign. The vote on the amendment will indicate to the house and to the country that there are a number of members of the house who are willing to vote for what has been our distinctive national flag for a good many years.
On that point I should like to say that a flag is meaningless until people have done something for that flag. I for one should like to give testimony to the fact that during the war I belonged to a group that did its best to make it stand out in the minds of people who were our allies and those who were our enemies that the red ensign was our distinctive flag. When I heard the Prime Minister say the other day that Canadian troops had not fought under that flag, or that he had never seen it, I wished he could have been where I was during the war.
In the latter part of the war I happened to serve with one of two Canadian squadrons in a group composed mainly of R.A.F. and
Canadian Flag
American squadrons. I served under an American general, and when you are in a mixture of squadrons doing the same type of work one squadron matches itself against the others. Some of us had served with R.A.F. squadrons, but because of the great difficulty that there was among the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and people from the United Kingdom it was decided to pull out of the R.A.F. squadrons all crews containing a majority of Canadians. Thus two Canadian squadrons were formed in the summer of 1944 to serve in the close support work being done by the allies for the 14th army in Burma.
I think I am right in saying that it is tough to take orders from a sergeant at any time, but when you have to take orders from a sergeant who is of another nationality, whether he be British or American, I think members here can understand how resentful we felt and how glad we were to serve in a Canadian squadron. The essence of my little anecdote is that serving as we were in the same area, crowded on a small island with all squadrons working from the same base, naturally there was rivalry among us. If you look at the official squadron records for that theatre you will find that the average tonnage per month carried by squadrons doing this particular type of work was about 3,200 tons a month delivered on objective. During the same period of time the Canadian squadrons averaged over 5,000 tons a month. No American or British squadron came anywhere near what the Canadians were doing.
Why did the Canadians do so much under such great difficulties to demonstrate that they were the best in that particular group? We did so because we knew the Americans thought they were the best in the world and told everybody about it, and the R.A.F. thought they were the best in the world and kept quiet. The only way we could show we were the best was by doing the job. So we set a record of tonnage carried to objectives that no other squadron could match.
On each of our planes was the red ensign. There was also the official roundel with the maple leaf on it, but the red ensign was carried on our planes. When we returned from operational sorties we drew up our planes in the assembly area right opposite an operations tent flying the red ensign as well as the air force insignia outside the tent. As we completed these missions each of us knew we were demonstrating to our allies that the Canadians were an effective part of the war effort, and we were trying to earn

Canadian Flag
the right tor Canadians to be recognized by their flag, the red ensign.
I have no apologies now for speaking in support of this amendment, because those of us who were emotionally involved in trying to demonstrate that this was our flag felt, when the then prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King pointed to the red ensign at the end of the war and said to General Crerar "You have made that Canada's flag", that we had been a part of making it Canada's flag.
I could go on and talk of other things of a more personal nature. In our particular group we had no defence except high flying fighters, and our orders were to use camouflage on our aircraft. In spite of those orders the Canadian squadrons painted on the sides of their aircraft the maple leaf as well as the red ensign. We did so because, with a million and a half troops on the allied side engaged in a mighty struggle with the Japanese empire, when we flew low over the troops in that area they all knew, our allies as well as the enemy, that these were Canadians who were getting through to their objective.
I well recall an occasion when the troops were advancing south down the Salween river to Rangoon. The hard pressed tank troops were without supplies and short of all amenities. A Canadian plane flew in at low level with such mundane things as big bags filled with cigarettes, dumped them on the road behind the forward element and gave the troops the chance to smoke an American or Canadian cigarette for the first time in many months. I recall too a little box story on the front page of "SEAC", the southeast Asia command newspaper, saying "Thanks, Canada". The officer commanding the tank corps said "If you had flown 10 feet lower we would have thanked you personally".
We took our flag everywhere to let those people know that it was our flag. Some of us, possibly a minority, think we earned the right for Canadians to fly that distinctive national flag with pride. It seems rather odd to me that the minute the last amendment was moved the government decided on that day to apply closure. Did they not want a debate on the red ensign so that people across the country could be made aware of the testimony in favour of that flag? The government has given us little chance to put forward alternatives.
I should like to refer to an editorial that appeared in the Globe and Mail on September 11, 1964, dealing with the question of closure. At that time the house had decided to refer

the flag question to a committee, and in approving this move the editorial stated in part:
What is more important, any flag adopted under such circumstances-
By closure.
-would have been an object of contempt and scorn.
Today the same Globe and Mail says closure is all right. What is the significance of this? It simply means that this newspaper, with no sense of responsibility to minorities in Canada, said in September that to bring in a flag by closure would lead to contempt and scorn, and today says that closure is all right.
My mind goes back once again to an event that happened before you and I were in the house, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the use of closure in 1956, when closure was applied before debate occurred. What are people going to think? In their minds they are going to associate this new flag not only with closure as it will be applied tonight but with closure as it was applied in 1956. So I checked the debates of that time. One thing that came to light at that time was that United States companies were being asked by the government to come into Canada and finance a pipe line that should have been a Canadian undertaking of great pride. The house was told that it had to get the legislation through or construction could not start right away, and that Canadians could not possibly support such a huge undertaking. So these American entrepreneurs came into Canada and set up companies so they could buy Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company shares. If my memory serves me correctly they did not even obtain them at the opening market value of the stock, $10, but got them for $8 a share.
I hold in my hand today an offer to purchase shares of common stock of Canadian Delhi Oil Ltd., which is a subsidiary company of the Murchisons from Texas, one of this group of entrepreneurs who came in and convinced the government of that day that they and they alone could handle such a great undertaking, even though when some shares were put on the market in Canada the issues were oversubscribed seven to ten times. Here, under date of November 25, 1964 is an offer to purchase which will remain open until the close of business on January 8, 1965. At this very moment this company is prepared to strip these Trans-Canada shares from its set-up and sell the balance of the company back to another

United States company. They will now be selling for more than $40 those shares which they bought for $8 because this government applied closure. This will mean that for those shares for which they paid $3.5 million they will now receive $35 million.
At the moment I cannot help but get the taste in my mouth of this graft ridden government, not being aware that it is graft ridden, coming in and applying closure on a subject like this; particularly on a day when, as everyone knows, we are honouring the eighth anniversary of the selection of the leader of the Conservative party who fought closure in 1956.
It is not only my mind that comes to this conclusion. On the editorial page of this morning's Globe and Mail there is an article by Mr. Scott Young, who tells a very interesting story. This story concerns cabinet ministers who had not previously considered hara-kiri, and asks them to consider it now. What does he say about this search for a flag? He says it has caused us to lose face in Japan, and I quote:
Partly this is because we have such plausible cabinet ministers (some days). Recent ministerial meetings between Japanese and Canadians left the Japanese with the firm conviction that what Paul-san Martin and Walter-san Gordon want, they get. So when their leader, Lester-san Bowles-san (Mike-san) Pearson said in Winnipeg last spring that he had an idea for a flag, factory whistles blew shrilly and Japan rushed to get in on the ground, or even basement, floor. They didn't make only those little auto-aerial flags, but mighty silk and nylon flags built to last as long as winds blew over the barren lands.
I learned this the other evening when Mr. Gordon and I happened to be sitting across a dinner table from one another at Massey College. He thus was absent from a night sitting in the Commons during which the flag debate was in progress. I asked if he were not afraid of missing something that he had not heard before. When he recovered from this preposterous suggestion, he said affably that he personally was having more trouble with the Japanese over our flag than he was with the Commons. The sad story came out.
Here is a report in a newspaper in our country ridiculing this flag as an effort to increase trade with Japan. Some of the members of the house, including members of cabinet, rushed out ond bought these flags. I heard that they were on sale in cities like Vancouver and Toronto for $1 each. They took thousands of suckers and high pressured them into buying this three maple leaf flag. Now they say, by closure, they are not going to get the three maple leaf flag; they are not even going to get a vote. We are going to be forced to take the single maple leaf flag.
Canadian Flag
This whole question of a flag-I have to watch my time for obvious reasons-brings me to some statements I have kept in my files for a long time. This one is from the Victoria Daily Colonist of August 8, 1964, almost five months ago:
The assumption is that the Commons will then recess-
This is after we had passed interim supply for three months instead of two at our suggestion.
-and prepare for a new session. That is, once Mr. Pearson has rammed his new flag into the statute books. He acts like a schoolmaster who won't let his form go home until it bows to his wishes.
In the present impasse that hamstrings parliament and sees it sitting through the hot months of an eastern summer the Prime Minister displays the petulence so often associated with persons of weak character. He seems to imagine that a show of authority is an indication of strength, even when a diplomatic way out of dilemma is offered him.
We offered the Prime Minister an honourable, diplomatic way to bring this matter to a successful conclusion. We would have liked to get a vote of the house on this red ensign, and we will. We would have liked other votes which would have indicated to the house that there were other suggestions by way of compromise that we think might have united the whole house, if not the whole country. However, on this very important matter we are forced to our knees by a closure vote that applies tonight. I should like to suggest to members opposite that by so doing not only have they tied themselves up with the closure imposed in 1956 but have tied themselves up with the type of action in parliament that shall ever disgrace the name of modern Liberalism.
Closure is a device that has been used in Canada several times already, but as Laurier protested and as the Leader of the Opposition protested, it was something that no government should ever use in the future. As one hon. member said when he was in opposition, it would not be used by a government that did not lose its senses. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government has lost its senses when it imposes such a doubtful type of regulation as closure on us on such an important matter.


Robert Carman Coates: I do
not believe there is a better example of the condemnation of the government's attitude toward the issue that is before the house than the fact that in order for the government to secure the approval it knew parliament

Canadian Flag
would give for one reason or another, whether the country as a whole was in accord with the majority view within the house, we are now debating for the last time in this parliament what our national flag should be.
It is indeed significant that at the moment we have a choice between two alternatives, a maple leaf flag that could well take on significance in the future if our nation continues to prosper and expand, and a flag that is more representative of our past than any other symbol in our nation, the Canadian red ensign. It is indeed unfortunate that we must face the fact that we are going to have to agree with the majority vote in the House of Commons as to what our nation's flag will be, without knowing with certainty the opinion of the majority of our people. Surely, sir, this is the crux of the whole matter, the fact that this government was willing to put this question forward last April or May without determining with any degree of certainty what were the views of the Canadian people with regard to our national flag.
If, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle pointed out, the government had moved in the same direction as the government of the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King did in 1945, it would have endeavoured to produce a flag by determining in a non-partisan way what the people of Canada felt the flag design should be. Had it done that we would not have seen the House of Commons become a debating society on symbols at a time when it should have been taking action that would be of material benefit to our citizens in the many areas where the government promised action would be taken.
Instead of that we saw an ill conceived, poorly handled flag design placed before the house, a design that later went into the trash can where it belonged because of the method used by the government in endeavouring to inflict it upon the Canadian people without giving them any choice in the matter. Today we are almost back where we started. We have a flag which the government embraces wholeheartedly, although there is one unique member in the Liberal party, and we still have a flag which has flown over this nation for 97 years. After almost six months of debate we are told we must now make the same decision the government asked us to make originally, without any real change in the attitude of hon. members because they are no better prepared today to speak with certainty on the views of the Canadian people than they were six months ago.
[Mr. Coates.1
When 1 a.m. on Tuesday morning comes, when the guillotine falls, when the words stop and the votes are taken, will any of us be any more certain than we were last April of what the Canadian people want in the way of a flag design? Since last April many polls have been taken. Most of them told us what the people did not want, but few of them told us what the people did want.
You may talk to an individual who will say "I think we should have a distinctive Canadian flag." But when you show him the three maple leaf design, or the present design which was agreed upon by a majority of members in the flag committee, he will say "Oh, no. I don't like those flags. I don't think that is the type of flag we should have for Canada." He does not know what he wants, but I say without fear of contradiction that there is a large majority in this nation who do not want the flag design that is now being proposed by the government. There is also a substantial group, indeed I would say the largest group, who know what they want, and what they want is the Canadian red ensign. They want no other flag, although I have always found those people quite willing either to abide by the wishes of a majority as shown in a plebiscite or to accept an alternative flag embodying the symbols of our past, the symbols of the founding races and of the contributions they made to the building of this nation.
More than anything else the problem we face in parliament today, and the problem we have faced during the six months this question has been before the Canadian people, is a problem of mishandling and mismanagement in the way this matter was placed before the country, the absolute and unbelievable carelessness of the government in endeavouring to give the people the impression that it is decisive at least on the flag issue, if on nothing else.
Members of the government have finally made a decision to bring in closure, and what a grand decision that is. I can think of nothing worse; I can think of nothing more undemocratic than to tell the Canadian people they are going to have a flag, born of division, flying from the flagpoles of this nation; for certainly when the vote is taken tonight there will be division and that division will be as indicative of the nation as it is of the House of Commons.
What will they have after the vote is taken? If the other house is kind and considerate- something the upper house in South Africa



14, 1S64

[Stage Direction]
was not-they will have a flag that is as colourless, as nondescript as any flag produced by any of the emerging nations in the world in which we live. They say the maple leaf is an emblem of the nation, and with that I have no argument. As I said earlier, it may come to mean something in the future; but for a nation 97 years of age it is a sad looking flag, produced by a sad looking government for a sad looking people, for that is certainly what they will be tomorrow morning.
The flag design, Mr. Speaker, is typical of the picture this government has produced ever since it took office. One can well understand why members opposite finally embraced it and agreed, with one exception, that it should be the flag which will fly over our nation. I think we should have been better off as a parliament and as a nation if the government had moved to set aside the whole question. Surely no one will get excited about the design now in question, and I consider there will always be a segment in this nation which will feel that the flag design chosen by the government should be replaced whenever the government is replaced. I cannot feel that any future government will find many arguments to use in opposition to the view held by many people in this country that some action should be taken to determine what the Canadian people as a whole believe should be involved in any flag which is to represent a nation which in 1967 will be celebrating its one hundredth birthday.
I regret more than anything else that a decision was made last April to move in this direction. It was known by the government that they would receive a measure of support from the province of Quebec for a flag design of this type, support which would not be available in any other part of Canada. One would have thought that in the light of other developments which are occurring and which have been occurring in the past few years hon. gentlemen opposite would have been forewarned about the type of animosity which would be created and developed by moving in this direction. It would have been more sensible to have decided that in the interests of national unity it would be better not to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of people in other parts of Canada. They should not have risked doing something which Canadians in other provinces might describe as nothing more than a concession.
I do not think the people of Quebec have much interest in whether we should have a maple leaf flag or whether the red ensign
Canadian Flag
should continue to fly from the flagpoles of this nation, so long as there is a government in Ottawa which is making an effort to solve some of the serious economic problems which face that province. It would have been much more sensible to have sought solutions to these economic problems before trying to find new symbols for this nation.
Mr. Laniel:: We are doing both.


Robert Carman Coates: You are not doing both, and the hon. member knows it. It is all very well for him to say the government is doing both, but let him tell me about one piece of legislation which has been presented to this house and which has reached any degree of finality in the last six months to deal with the problems of agriculture in his own province of Quebec. His problems are the same as those of the maritime provinces and of the area which I represent. They are problems of economics, not of symbols. We should seek solutions to these questions before getting into a fight over what the symbols of this nation should be or should not be. These are things we could all face together; we could deal with them in a united way. This is what we should have been considering and attacking since April instead of discussing maple leaves or other symbols.
When one o'clock tomorrow morning comes we shall still be faced with the same economic problems that face us today. There will be no divergence of opinion as far as they are concerned. Instead, I must resume my seat, I suppose, and see the red ensign come down-a flag which represents much of our past history-to be replaced by a maple leaf flag which may represent a great deal for the future but which represents absolutely nothing to me or to anybody else living in this nation today.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will not rule me out of order if in my introductory remarks tonight I mention something which I know you will endorse. Eight years ago tonight the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was made leader of this party. Prior to that time, as a young and struggling lawyer in Saskatchewan-I was living in Saskatchewan

Canadian Flag
then-I got to know the Leader of the Opposition very well. I am certain that his greatest contemporaries and also, if I might put these words in fine print, his political enemies will agree with me that since his election to the House of Commons in 1940 he has dedicated himself to public life, and that at no time, no matter what the issue, has he ever lacked courage.
It is strange that on this occasion he had to rise on a point of personal privilege in connection with some remarks which were made in a certain newspaper. I suppose when analysing the life of a leader of a party who takes upon himself responsibility regarding issues which may arise you can never assess his worth until history assesses it. One has only to read the life stories of past presidents of the United States, past prime ministers of Canada and past prime ministers of Great Britain to appreciate that history always places things in their proper perspective. I think that when history does record the facts with reference to our leader, who brought this party from 39 or 40 seats up to 116 and then to 208, and who now leads an opposition with 94 or 95 seats, it will prove not only that he served his party well but that he also served his country well. I have no hesitation in saying that on this particular issue tonight he makes no apology, and should make no apology, for the fight he has put up.
The newspapers have reported that at times there have been divisions among us. As one hon. member said, I think the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt), thank goodness- actually I think his language was a little stronger than mine-the members of this party speak their mind, vote as they see the issue and stand and fall as they see the issue. We have never disciplined our thinking, because where everyone thinks alike there is no thinking.


Gilles Grégoire: Who said that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear our little member who was recently hung up on a hook in a Conservative member's office. I hope he will give me a better hearing tonight than he gave the Leader of the Opposition, who after all is an officer of this house. I understand the hon. member was hung up for about 20 minutes.


Gilles Grégoire: When?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is a most serious occasion, because at some time between now and 1 a.m., or after 1 a.m., a very important decision is going to be made.

I for one, as a Conservative, make no apology for the stand this party has taken or for the stand I personally have taken on this issue. I am from the city of Calgary, which is known for its friendliness, and I hope that, whatever remarks have been made in the early days of the debate or over the last ten days, we will rise to the occasion as Canadians and be friends. In this debate each one of us was seriously expressing his opinion as he saw the issue. Sometimes one gets a little too serious on occasions like this; but men in difficult circumstances, far more difficult than the situation we are in on the flag issue, have risen and set aside propaganda-and we have had a lot of that-and set aside their emotions and have been friends.
I have only to read some words of Havelock Ellis to make this point. He described the situation in the first war, in 1916 or 1917, I am not sure of the exact year, when-


Gilles Grégoire: You were not here then.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was born in 1916. I hear our little choir practitioner interrupting again, and he will filibuster anything because he has no respect for this place or for the dignity of parliament. Before I quote Havelock Ellis I should like to say this. When one hon. member said he would like to retain his British traditions-I am one of them and I make no apology for that-the hon. member then scoffed and sneered. I would ask him to bear with us for once.


Michael Starr: We have been bearing with him long enough.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, in no man's land in those days there were the allies on the one side and the Germans on the other, and they were so close that at this time of year they heard each other singing carols and they joined together in the singing of those carols. This is what Havelock Ellis said in this regard:
So we see, too, how simply the end of fighting might be reached. We have but to bring men together as human beings, either in imagination or in reality, and they are prepared to violate all the abstract principles of patriotism and war, to break any rule of discipline, rather than kill one another. We see it is not much to ask. It has been achieved on a single Christmas eve in men whose hatred of each other had been artificially excited to the highest pitch. Is it too much to expect that one day this process will be extended on the world's fighting line until so many men have had to be moved that there will be none left to replace them?



14, 19G4

[Stage Direction]
And so, Mr. Speaker, in that tone set by Havelock Ellis and under these difficult circumstances, I ask the government to bear with us tonight in the remarks we may make and the words we utter, even though they may hurt and even though they may penetrate the consciences of hon. members opposite. I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that in the only speech I made on this subject there were 22 interruptions in 35 minutes, and some of those interruptions lasted for two or three minutes. So as I say,
I would ask them to bear with us and listen to the remarks which will be made before morning or whenever the vote is taken. As the saying is, "Lend me your ears".
After all, we are a real democracy. We heard a member of our party express today a view absolutely contrary to some of the views I will be expressing tonight. He has an absolute right to do that as a member of this party, and so have I the right to express my views. But I would say to him and to all those who share his views that when our views differ let them be as tolerant of, and as patient with, our views as we were with his. We listened to him seriously and we have listened to the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite seriously.
After all, as Myrtle Cook Jackson said recently:
Democracy, guard well your sacred strength;
Through blood and tears this priceless gift was born-
This miracle, which brave men used at length
To shape a crown for freedom none may scorn.
When we can bear with each other's ideas then we are being tolerant and giving each other a fair hearing.
I speak tonight and say this to parliament, at a time when the government has implemented once again a rule, which is still a rule of this house-closure-that I oppose this measure at this time, and I cannot endorse the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who was the only minister of the crown who really spoke on this issue, the only minister of the crown who got off his love seat and stated his position, only to say that we are going to do so and so during this debate, and that if we do not do that there will be a general election or an implementation of closure. I may say that as far as I am concerned, as a Conservative, I fear neither.
I do not believe however that I could honestly have stood in my place today, as a minister of the crown and a long time member of this house, had I made the state-
Canadian Flag
ment made by one minister on March 26, 1962, and voted for closure without having first made some reasonable explanation of my actions. That minister made a statement in 1962 at a time when we were considering the abolition of the closure rule. This is what that minister said then:
I believe that no government in its senses-
I like that expression, "in its senses".
-would ever again use the existing closure rule in our book.
The man who made that statement voted today for closure without giving any explanation or reason for changing his point of view. I suggest his reason is that he wanted to follow the discipline of the Liberal party, or did so perhaps for political expediency. The minister who made that statement is the Minister of Transport (Mr. Piekersgill), speaking at that time as Mr. Piekersgill, as reported at page 2165 of Hansard of March 26, 1962. These are his words:
I do not wish to be a purist.
No one expected him to be a purist.
If I had been drafting such a motion I am not sure that the precise word I would have used would have been "desirability". However, that is an unimportant matter. I agree with the Prime Minister.
The prime minister at that time happened to be Mr. Diefenbaker:
He may be surprised to find my saying this without any qualification-
I emphasize that statement, without any qualification or reservation; yet today without any explanation he stood in his place and voted against that espoused principle.
-and I have no more desire or intention than he seemed to have to relive the past or to try to rewrite it or do anything of that sort-that, having regard to what has happened, I believe that no government in its senses would ever again use the existing closure rule in our book. I therefore do not see any sense in leaving it there.
And to use the minister's words, no government in its true senses should implement the rule of closure. Let those words be the minister's own sword, and let that sword be used at the minister's own hara-kiri, because this government has no sense of responsibility.
There are other matters I could mention, but because of the rules of debate I am not allowed to do so. However under other circumstances and under a different leader, ministers of the government party might well have resigned their positions. I am sure they might have had a sense of responsibility
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Flag
and known that it was proper for them to quit. I am sure they might have known what was the decent thing to do in view of their responsibilities. However, they still sit in their places.
We had an experience in Alberta of this kind of Liberalism, involving two individuals. I make no apologies for giving their names. I suggest these examples are equivalent to the situation which has developed because of the statement made by that minister in 1962 and his action in voting for closure today. Because he still sits in his seat I must come to the conclusion that he has not measured up to his responsibility or his integrity.
The two Liberals in Alberta placed themselves in a similar position. One was a mayor of the city of Calgary, Don MacKay. As a result of his actions a judicial inquiry was held, and at the conclusion of that inquiry he moved to Phoenix, Arizona. The other one was a Mr. Hawrelak, who was re-elected as mayor but was involved in a scandal.
It seems strange to me that when dealing with responsibilities of debate and responsibilities for closure we should have a situation today where ministers of the crown, having been involved in this kind of scandal, are still sitting in their places and taking the position they take as far as this issue is concerned, voting for closure without having given any explanation.
The only minister of the crown who has made a statement is the Prime Minister, and he has accused us of making a great number of speeches, filibustering and prolonging the debate. On the other hand, during the same week he wrote a letter setting out certain basic principles of conduct which his ministers should follow, warning them like school boys to be honest. Our democracy has really reached a sorry position when the leader of the government and the Prime Minister of this country must warn his ministers to be honest.
While dealing with closure I should like to say this. There is a great deal of difference between implementing closure during the debate on a legislative matter and implementing closure on an issue such as the flag question, because legislation can be passed and repealed, but when dealing with traditions and past history we are dealing with the past, present and future which, taken together, provide us with our emblematic symbols, and we cannot repeal any action we take in this way. We cannot unfurl a new flag every day, or every parliament.

The most cutting words of the Prime Minister in this regard were the words he used when he referred to people pointing out the fact that there might be some prejudice as far as the province of Quebec was concerned. I ask the Prime Minister, as I stand in my place tonight, outside of that province of Quebec -and the people there have an absolute right to believe whatever they wish to believe- what province of the remaining nine has a majority of people who would say that we want as a national flag any flag that does not have on it the union jack? Therein lines the question regarding whether this is a majority opinion.
Parliament has not always been right in its decisions. On one occasion an imperial parliament legislated the union of Ireland, but that union never took place because the majority did not favour such a union. I suggest that the government has a responsibility to explain its position to the people of Canada. They must prove to the majority of the population of this nation that they believe honestly that they have a mandate to change the flag of this nation. It is for that reason that we have carried on this fight in parliament on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, we have at all times been prepared to give a little. We have at all times been prepared to compromise and listen to what those with other beliefs have to say, but I ask this question of those people who have accused us of presenting the kind of arguments that are contemptible, and accused us of filibustering: When is it wrong to differ in opinion? I repeat that when all think alike there is no thinking at all and the moment we get to that stage there is no parliament, no democracy.
An hon. Member:: There was a filibuster.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody says "filibuster". As it came from the Liberal ranks I only have to remind him to read and live the pages of history in 1962 and 1963 when many times the word "closure" was mentioned because of the long debates and the filibustering that took place on that occasion. It was right for the Liberals then to oppose closure because they claimed they stood on principle, but now they wish to use closure to shove this flag down our throats. I say that the manner in which closure has been brought in shows contempt and arrogance. It is nothing short of dictatorship to bring in closure in this fashion.


Gilles Grégoire: Dispense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My little friend says "dispense". I say to him that if parliament dispenses with him it is one "dispense" with which we will certainly all agree. I made reference to the letter the Prime Minister had written. I would ask this question, because we have not had questions for a number of days. Many of us can hear the wheels grinding now somewhere in Canada or maybe in another nation-Mr. Scott of the Globe and Mail had something to say about this- producing the hemp or silk for the new flag. The Liberals are so arrogant and so indifferent that they are going to ram the new flag down the throats of the Canadian people and somewhere, either in Canada or elsewhere, these flags are being manufactured to fly over the buildings of this country, if they can get it through the institutions of parliament.


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


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, closure has been brought in and may I say at the outset that in a debate such as this closure should never have been applied. There is no place in the House of Commons for closure on a subject such as the flag, a subject that touches the hearts of each and every member of the House of Commons as well as the hearts of each and every citizen throughout Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said during the debate that he wanted the flag question decided after full and free debate. That statement and the statement made by the ex-leader of the house over there just do not jibe. In other words, if you are going to have full and free debate you do not cut it off and there is no reason why the flag debate should have been cut off.
Let me make a couple of points. First of all, with regard to the cutting off of the debate I say without fear of contradiction that we have had 10 days of debate, with today being the 11th, on one flag and one flag only. No one can deny that. The house has had a preoccupation with the flag since last spring which lasted all through the summer. This preoccupation has plagued the people of Canada and has driven them to the point where they feel that no work is being done in the House of Commons. In many respects I am inclined to agree with them but I do not agree as to the cause. Many in the house as well as outside have said that the cause is obstruction. I say to them once again that nothing is further from the truth because the cause is not obstruction. The cause is the
Canadian Flag
failure of the government to bring forward the business of the house in an orderly manner.
I have used the word "preoccupation" and I will emphasize that point as I continue my speech because it is the Liberal preoccupation with the flag which has strangled all reasonable and orderly conduct of the business of the house. Without going into too much detail I ask them this straight question. What business of the house has been obstructed? The answer, of course, is none. They refer to the pension plan and say that we have to clean that up and get rid of it. They name another dozen very small items and a few major ones like the labour legislation and they say that this is the business of the house which is being held up. Nothing is further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. The business or the house has been held up purely and simply because the Liberal government in office today has not seen fit to bring forward their legislation.
Why have they not seen fit to bring forward their legislation? They have tried time and again to bring bits and pieces of legislation before the house. I would mention the pension plan again. Last November, over a year ago, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) stood up on her two feet and said: "This is it; we are bringing it in now". What happened? They had to revamp it, just like they have had to revamp a lot of their other legislation. Then they made another false start. But when they start something do they keep at it? From the point of view of the orderly conduct of the business of the house they could keep at it if they wished to do so if they did not have this preoccupation with the flag. But do they carry on? No, they do not. I will tell you why they do not carry on. It is not because of their preoccupation with the flag but because of the fact that their legislation has been downright lousy from the beginning and subject to withdrawal all along the line. Nobody in the house can deny that from their very first budget this has been true.
So far as preoccupation with the flag is concerned, there is talk about spending a lot of time on it and not getting on with the business of the house, but the simple fact of the matter is that we members, who normally should be back in our constituencies finding out the views of our constituents, were kept here for part of June, all of July and August and part of September for the flag debate and a few other little things. This is the longest session of parliament on record now, Mr. Speaker. We

Canadian Flag
started in February and we went through March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and into December. We have been here 10 months. Do not let anybody say that the flag has kept us here that long.
What legislation has the government brought forward? I will hand it to them for a few bits and pieces but, believe me, when I am handing it to them I will at the same time ask any Liberal member or anybody else in Canada to compare, month by month, year by year and session by session, the legislation they have brought in with that introduced by the last Conservative government which had the best record in this regard in history. At this stage of the game the Minister of Transport is reading his newspaper-I am sorry, it is the house leader. The Minister of Transport is not here. Last Friday the house leader rose in righteous indignation and said that circumstances were such that closure was warranted and necessary. Well, I am not so sure. He said it was necessary because we were making a mockery of parliament. I would not comment on his interruptions, because they were not worth much. In fact, I recall when I was making a speech he got up and interrupted, then he apologized and said he did not know what was going on. It was a lousy interruption I might tell you, Mr. Speaker.
He is the house leader and I say say to him this: You, sir, know what the orderly business of this house is and should be; you have not one, single solitary answer because it is within your jurisdiction to demand of the government that they will bring before this house business which is essential to the consideration of legislation that is necssary for the well being of Canada. I say to the house leader that it was his duty. I know he is a man of integrity. I cannot understand why he sits there and has to take a waffling position, why he just shrugs his shoulders and indicates that the whole ruddy troop of ministers have not got legislation ready to put before the house. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Vaughan Pugh: There are still some in the house, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, let us not hear any more of these rather stupid Liberal charges that have no meaning to the effect we are holding up the business of the house. It is not true.


Gilles Grégoire: Then sit down.


David Vaughan Pugh: I should like to refer to the preoccupation with the flag. I am glad to see that little man back in his seat; I missed him. He is the best interrupter in the house.


Gilles Grégoire: I did not say a word.


David Vaughan Pugh: He says that he did not say a word; that is what I like about him.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the preoccupation with the flag. I know I am on solid ground here because this government has been preoccupied with the flag, preoccupied with a false mandate and they have been preoccupied all down the line, when they should have been considering legislation which is so necessary and important to our dominion. They are the ones who are responsible and they should have seen that legislation was brought forward. There has been this preoccupation, and now closure. May I just button up that one thing? There is no question about it. We are on our eleventh day of consideration of this flag. The time we have spent heretofore on the flag, and this no one can deny at all, we have spent on a flag that was produced by the Liberal government or the leader of that government. Now, it has been tossed in the ash can.
I am not making any disclosures when I say that all the Liberal members of the flag committee voted against this three maple leaf design and indicated their preference between the two flags. I know what I am talking about because I was a member of that flag committee. The Liberals were preoccupied with that flag which divided the feelings of the people of Canada, the feelings of members of parliament, and all that time which was used up was used up on a flag which the Liberals have now tossed aside. All during the summer, they said, you will take this or leave it; if you do not take it, we will have an election; if it is turned down, we will have an election. Where is that flag today? It is not here with us. I want to say again that all these charges of holding up the business of the house, of obstructing, of filibustering, all those charges which were made up until ten days ago, were made on a flag which even the Liberals were glad to get rid of.
Were we filibustering when we talked against that flag in this House of Commons? I think the facts have proven that the answer to the question is, no. What we said at that time was right. For the benefit of other parties who might be interested, I should say that every party voted against that flag. Where, then, is this holding up of the business

of the house? All we were debating was a flag, the creature of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and his cabinet; it had no status whatever and has been proven to have been just another bit of dishcloth. I believe it was on Friday that the Prime Minister told us they were not going to bring forward this flag. I say to you, was there a filibuster? The answer is no. How can we have closure at this time on the motion to adopt a flag design about which we have been talking for only ten days?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Vaughan Pugh: Hon. members across the way laugh. Well, I should like to mention something else since they are so happy. I am just wondering whether or not instead of closure there should not be disclosure in this debate. When I listened to that happy woman speaking today who comes from Winnipeg South (Mrs. Konantz), I heard her say that everything in the flag committee was wonderful. I have forgotten her exact words, but she indicated everything was rosy and she said that there was no partisanship. I have never heard so much baloney in my life, and any member of that committee will know what I am talking about. She made a nice speech. She talked about history. She said that in her view we should have one history in Canada. I will agree with that. My questioning during the meetings of the flag committee was directed toward that. She said that the people of Canada were ignorant about history, and so were many members of parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will go a long way toward agreeing with that and I believe that every member of the flag committee, including the Creditistes, said the same thing. We should have had a study of this. Today we are talking about national unity. I say this, that no flag is going to produce national unity. I say that a study of history from each other's point of view-I am talking about French Canada and the rest of Canada-[DOT] might well produce unity because from education and study comes understanding. This is what we lack in Canada today. How I should like to see some of these Liberal members get up and make a speech telling us precisely what is going on.


An hon. Member:: They are not allowed to do that.


David Vaughan Pugh: They are not allowed to that. I must say I was extremely happy to hear the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) get up and talk, and talk with a purpose. I
Canadian Flag
recommend that speech to every Liberal member in the house. I urge them to search their consciences because I am amazed when I see hon. members opposite who have not spoken, hon. members from ridings with which I am familiar.
I have a paper here in my hand which was written by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis). It is called, "Report from parliament hill," and some of the things which have crept into it are funny. In it he says that he has not spoken in the flag debate in the house and does not intend to do so. Why did he not speak? People on this side have stood up on principle and talked about our flag, our present Canadian flag. We have fought not only for that flag but also for a modification of it.
I am not giving away any secrets when I say that I myself moved a motion in the flag committee that, in addition to its present symbols it should contain the maple leaf. The Conservative members were quite prepared to go along with that. We are not strictly Canadian red ensign, but to return to the paper written by the hon. member for Carleton, he says that one member of the Liberal party has gone so far that it is hard to see how he can stay within the party. My goodness, is that your view over there? How many other Liberal members say, "He spoke against the party, therefore drum him out"?
I am amazed that hon. members opposite approve closure being introduced just because they have been too darned well afraid to get up on their feet and say what their constituents want them to say. They sit there with grins on their faces and say nothing. This is what the hon. member for Carleton says at the end of his report:
Frankly, I believe the country is sick and tired of the whole affair. Parliament should settle the issue and its members can then answer for what they have done to the people at the next election-
Are they going to adopt a flag and then answer for it at the next election? Why do they not give the people an opportunity to decide first whether they want our present flag changed and, second, what new design they would like to have?
I have a great many more things to say but I think I have used almost my whole time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Ont.l: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity tonight to

Canadian Flag
support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas)-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the dignity of this place certain hon. members may not want debate but sometime between now and 1 a.m. they are going to have a vote, and surely members from this party should receive a hearing. Surely what is taking place in the house is improper and I ask you, as Speaker, to bring the house to order.


Gilles Grégoire: About the point of order, I would say that no Conservative member can complain that he has not been heard, because the hon. member who now has the floor will set the unbelievable record of speaking six times on the same matter. On the contrary, everyone should congratulate that hon. member (Mr. Danforth) on that feat, namely that of speaking six times on the same matter.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, just as I
opened my address there was placed on my desk a little hat with a red maple leaf on it. Knowing the size of some of the heads in the house it is not hard to guess where it came from.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: This is a deeply emotional issue and I do not intend to let a desire for newspaper headlines stop me from saying what I wish to say tonight. As I stated at the outset, I am supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Middlesex West because I want recorded on Hansard the names of those hon. members who are so eager to haul down the red ensign.
This debate has been ridiculed over and over again by all means of communication in this country, but history will tell the value of it, and I suspect it will go down in history as one of the great debates. I am proud to be recorded as having spoken four times, as honestly and sincerely as I can, representing my riding on a matter of principle, rather than going down on the record as being responsible for catcalls, jeers, interruptions and objections such as we have been subjected to over a thousand times in the last ten days.
The history of this flag will go down in headlines, and I would like to repeat some of them, "The flag by July," "The Canadian flag by the Queen's visit," "The flag by Christmas," and now, "The flag by closure." I am

sure hon. members opposite can be proud of their record.


An hon. Member:: Yes, we are.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, go back and be an undertaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, stop them.


Mr. Speaker:: There is very little time left in this debate and I mean to ensure that each one has the proper opportunity of expressing his or her true sentiments.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I am being accused of repetition. I ask you, is it wrong, where our country is concerned, to keep asking for reason? Is it wrong to keep asking for fairness? Is it wrong to keep asking for justice? Is it wrong to keep asking for an end to the project that is spreading disunity from coast to coast? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not wrong. This is not repetition. This should be the aim and object of all members of the house, not just those in the Conservative party.


David Réal Caouette: It is wrong to have no reason.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I hear the interjection, it is wrong to have no reason, and I sympathize with the hon. member.


David Réal Caouette: To have to sit with you.


Harold Warren Danforth: The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) rose in his place and put forward the aims, objectives and views of the government with respect to this very important matter. We had been asking him for days to do so, and we are still asking hon. members on the front benches opposite to do that very thing. The Prime Minister said he was speaking for all members of his cabinet in putting forward his views. Here was a golden opportunity for the leader of this great country to propose a plan, to put forward a compromise, to take action in a manner which would bring credit to a great statesman. Instead of seizing this golden opportunity, however, he delved into party politics to such an extent that he tried to place the blame for this political holocaust on the Conservative party.
Why could he not have left this entire measure out of partisan politics? Why did he embark on a course which plunged this country into political division? Why did he have to use our flag as barter on a partisan party platform? This is why we are in trouble today. It is sheer hypocrisy in my mind to

say this flag will bring national unity. How can it do so when there is division in this house as well as across Canada? We have been criticized for the fight we have put up in this chamber for the Canadian red ensign. If we do have a new flag let us hope that the government will be prepared to put up as much of a fight for that flag if the need should ever arise. The Prime Minister asked the opposition to join with the Liberals in putting up this glorious new flag which will mean the unity of Canada. I want to join wholeheartedly with my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) who said this afternoon that he would take no part in hauling down the red ensign. I will have no part in taking down Canada's flag. We are told we cannot have a plebiscite -that the people cannot make their wishes known. We must accept this position. This has been decided by the House of Commons. And now we have closure, so that the opposition cannot make its wishes known. Is it not a sad day indeed in Canada's history when we must have disunity in the country as a price for one man's desire for a new flag before Christmas? What a mockery of Canadian justice.
I have been criticized because I have dared to stand up and speak for the fourth time on this question. Would that I had the opportunity to speak four more times until this parliament returns to reason and sanity and allows the Canadian people to decide what flag they wish to have in the future. I am proud to be a member of a party which feels the Canadian people have the right to make Canadian decisions where the emotions of every single Canadian are involved. This is what we are fighting for, not a piece of cloth. The people of Canada will be asked to salute the flag on that flagpole and surely they should have the right to choose the flag they should salute. This is not a state; it is a democracy. We have tried, and we are continuing to try, to resolve this question in the best possible way. We have offered to compromise. From time to time we pointed out avenues along which the government could approach this question in a logical way. Instead members opposite approached this question from a partisan point of view. It was they who interjected this question into the business of the country, not us. It was they who gave it priority in the list of business to be completed by this house, not us. It was they who imposed closure, not us. Now they expect us meekly to submit to their will. We cannot do this. Representing the people I do,
Canadian Flag
I cannot accept these measures without fighting to the extent of my ability.
This is not a matter to be treated with the levity which we have witnessed. This involves the Canadian flag, and in my estimation the decision of this parliament will be final. Surely no other government in the future would dare to interject a flag question again into the work of a Canadian parliament. This is why the issue before us is so serious. This is why we must be so right in our decisions and deliberations. This is why we must be sure that what we are doing is right. I feel the government is making one of the biggest blunders any government could make because I believe that instead of unity it is actively promoting disunity in this country, as never before.
Mr. Speaker, the people will know who is responsible. It is not us: It is the government which brought this measure into being.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: In the
closing hours of this debate I intend to speak only briefly because I believe there has been too much talk already. The attitude of the public as I sense it in my travels across the country and through my correspondence is simply that most people are fed up with this subject.
Whether we agree or do not agree with the method being used to close off this debate; whether we agree or do not agree with the report of the flag committee on which we shall be voting tonight, the simple fact remains that nothing positive will be gained from a continuation of this debate. There is no place in the life of our country at this time for any further rocking of the boat. After some 260 speeches in the House of Commons, most of them from members of the Conservative opposition, any further debate on this flag issue would be redundant, superfluous and unnecessary. I do not believe that after all these hours of debate one opinion has been changed in this House of Commons. I do not think it is necessary to hash and rehash the arguments which have been raised by those who hold opposing opinions.
However, I am likewise convinced that the government has handled this flag situation very poorly right from the beginning. I think it is recognized by most Canadians that that is the case.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You have made your speech.

Canadian Flag


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was wondering how the hon. member would have handled it.


Robert Norman Thompson: The hon. member can ask his questions when I am through. However, democratic government will never function, in fact it will not survive, if a filibustering minority is permitted to paralyse the majority. Nor, on the other hand, will it ever function effectively or survive if the government continues to stumble into and out of one crisis after another. At the present time this parliament is plagued by both situations. It is now imperative that a decision be made through a vote which will express the will of the majority of the members of this House of Commons. In my opinion, there is no other alternative at the present time.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that I feel that a flag by closure is far from the ideal. Ever since a distinctive flag was called for in the election platform of the Social Credit party it has been suggested that the problem could best be worked out through a national referendum, and we have advocated this. However, I am convinced that in the way this flag situation rests at the present time any referendum would simply serve further to divide the country. We must face up to the reality of the situation.
This is the ninth time that closure has been invoked by the Canadian House of Commons in its 97 J years of history. Six times it was invoked by a Conservative government and three times by a Liberal government. It is a legitimate and an effective tool of a democratic legislature and the parliament at Westminster uses it often.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Not in this way.


Robert Norman Thompson: I suggest that other parliaments use it, and for the same reason it is being used now. The situation we have in the house tonight is something which can have nothing but an adverse effect on the nation as a whole, and even though we do not like it and it is unfortunate that this is the means by which a decision will be made on the flag, I can see no other alternative.
Four months late the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) suggested an all party flag committee. The resulting committee, made up of 15 members, subsequently held some 45 sittings. At the time when the names of the members of this flag committee were announced-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: You were in Africa.


Robert Norman Thompson: I suggest that hon. members in the Conservative opposition give me

the same opportunity to speak that I have given them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: At the time that these 15 names were announced it was my thought that 15 capable, honest and trustworthy men had been chosen. It was a remarkable group of individuals who represented the rest of us on the flag committee. I want to thank them for the way they went to work and for the tremendous number of hours they put in. I am convinced they did their work conscientiously, carefully and thoroughly. Their final recommendation was decided by a majority vote of ten to four, not counting the chairman. We are now considering their report, and the purpose of the motion now before the house is to enable us either to accept or reject this report. It is that vote in which we are expected to take part tonight following the vote on the amendment, which to me is contrary to the decision made by the flag committee.
As one of those who agreed to the setting up of this flag committee I am convinced that it is my own personal obligation to support the report of the committee and I intend to do so. I say this even though I personally do not prefer the design which they selected.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What would you like?


Robert Norman Thompson: It is not a question of what I personally like. We entrusted this responsibility to these 15 men, and in view of the fact that they did submit a strong and substantial majority report I think it is our responsibility to support them. I believe this is the general opinion of the majority of the Canadian people.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that this is the opinion of Canadians living abroad, which after all is where a flag perhaps serves its greatest use, because it does represent Canadians who are abroad. I was in France and Germany in June and I spoke to many members of our armed forces. I intentionally asked them their opinion about a flag, and not one dissenting voice did I hear to the proposition that it was time that Canada, in her unique role in foreign affairs, had its own distinctive symbol. I found this opinion expressed in my recent trip to Africa, where I met hundreds of Canadians who were doing a worth-while job in the countries they were serving. They were doing a magnificent job representing our country, and once again I heard not one dissenting voice to the proposition that it is time Canada had her own distinctive flag. In

fact, I believe that the reports of the goings on in this house which have been carried by the world's press have lowered the image of Canada in the minds of a lot of people who look to Canada, a small nation, as a leader of other small nations. They are wondering just what is taking place in this house.
There is one further aspect I should like to mention in connection with this entire issue. It seems to me that the elected representatives of the Canadian people should have more concern for our country than for their own partisan or personal convictions regarding the winning or losing of a single point in debate in this house. It is our responsibility and our privilege to demonstrate to the people of the world-yes, people of diverse backgrounds who do not know unity, or have the heritage we have in Canada-that together we can solve our problems in such a way as to meet the needs of every individual in this country, and thus prove to the world that the democratic form of government is best.
A question we might ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, is: Have we grasped the significance of our own destiny as a nation? If we have, then we should not continue focusing our attention on such an internal matter as the flag, but should be looking to much wider horizons-to the world outside.
In presenting the concept and image of unity, how much more important is it that we show that we can settle our difference in an amicable and democratic fashion? It could mean a great deal to the world if we as Canadians could set the example of solving the problems of our own country. I think this is most important at this time, and it should be remembered that it is not a flag which makes a country, it is a country and its people which make a flag.
I am convinced that the deficit picture, with which we are faced now, following these 33 days of debate, has brought us to the point where it is now our responsibility, particularly as members of parliament, to get on with the job before us which we are expected to perform. That is why my own decision is a very simple one about this debate. I believe there is only one alternative open to us, if we look at the situation objectively.
Many have spoken about the past, and let me say that I respect the past. In fact, one of the lessons I learned early in my lifetime at home is that we should respect the past and those who have been part of it, as well as the institutions for which they have fought, not only to help survive, but to perpetuate 20220-702
Canadian Flag
for us. In closing I should like to say that while that respect for the past must remain, our responsibility is to the future because we, our children and their children are going to live in the future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since this debate will close tonight I think it is appropriate for me to recapitulate the position the New Democratic party has taken on this question.
On June 16 when this debate was opened on the flag question I said that our party had three main objections to the proposal which was then placed before the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Those objections are still valid. Our first objection was toward the design which the Prime Minister proposed at that time. We said that we were prepared to vote for it because we wanted to see a distinctive national flag adopted, but that we would prefer another design.
I must say that we are pleased that the Prime Minister was prepared to send this question of a design to a parliamentary committee, and I should like to commend that committee for its work. The Prime Minister deserves commendation because of the fact that he was prepared to forgo the design he submitted to the house, and because he is now prepared to accept the design recommended by the committee. It takes a big man to adopt that position.
At least the majority of the members of this group are prepared to support the recommendation of the committee, but I am frank to say that the design the committee selected would not have been our choice. We would have preferred the design of our original suggestion, the red maple leaf on a white background with blue vertical bars denoting, as does the Canadian motto, from sea to sea. The committee voted on that design and turned it down. We live in a democracy, and no group living in a democracy can obtain all the things it wants. The committee has brought down a design, which I think is a good design and the design which ought to commend itself to the great majority of the Canadian people.
The position we have taken in this group on the flag question is that there should be a free vote. We take that view because the flag issue involves personal judgment and is a matter of one's own feeling. It has nothing to do with political ideologies or philosophies, and is not a partisan matter. One or two of our members will vote for the amendment. The majority will vote against the amendment; not because we are against the red

Canadian Flag
ensign, but because we believe that the majority of the people of Canada want a flag which symbolizes Canada's independence and Canada's role in world affairs.
I can understand those who have deep attachments for symbols of the past, since I have them myself, but I think we must recognize that Canada has moved from being a colony to a dominion, and from being a dominion to being a self-governing autonomous member of the commonwealth. As we have progressed toward being an autonomous nation, our symbols must also have changed to represent that change. We must have faith in the future of Canada, and I believe that our children's children and their children will see the day when Canada will have a bigger population and larger gross national product than the motherland which gave us birth. I think this will be one of the two great countries of the North American continent within the next century.
If we are to keep our rendezvous with destiny we must have a flag which denotes our faith in that destiny and our sense of national identity. I believe we can do this best by adopting a flag which does not constantly remind us of the things which have divided us too often in the past.
The second thing we objected to about the government's program was the method by which this whole question was brought before us. I am not going to labour that point, but I do want to say that I think the government could have saved itself and this country a great deal of heartache by sending this question to the committee in the first place without any time limit, and could have given Canadians a chance to attempt at least to work out some consensus, obtaining the support of the majority of Canadian people with a minimum of dissension and bitterness.
The report of the parliamentary committee of 1945 put forward a recommendation which, if I remember correctly, was voted for by 23 to 1. That is close to being a unanimous vote. If I remember correctly, that committee sat for 18 months. I do not think 18 months is too great a price to pay for general support for something such as a flag. The great tragedy of that period is that the flag recommended was not adopted by parliament. Had it been adopted by parliament we would have been saved a great deal of trouble during this session.
As I have said, I commended the Prime Minister on June 16, because of the fact that he picked up this thorny nettle which all his
[Mr. Douglas.)
predecessors carefully avoided. I think he is to be commended that he has undertaken this matter, but I suggest that the method which was adopted has brought a great deal more dissension and some degree of bitterness which I believe could have been avoided.
The other thing which we criticized at the beginning of the debate was the government's timing. I suggested on June 16 that by introducing this question at the time it was brought into the house the government was going to paralyse parliament and obstruct its own program. After all, there had been nothing in the speech from the throne about a flag. Early in June the Prime Minister was asked if he would outline the business for the remainder of the session and if I remember correctly he read out 38 legislative items, all of them important. Then, about the middle of June came the flag debate, with the result that we spent all of the summer months without discussing legislation. It obstructed the whole legislative program completely with the result that when this session of parliament is prorogued probably more legislation will die on the order paper than has been passed during the session. I think that is unfortunate.
When the government finally agreed to send this matter to a committee I thought the government had an excellent opportunity to redeem its mistake. It would have been a good thing to let the committee's report lie there, go on with the legislative program and let the flag wait until the end of the session or even wait until next session. But the Prime Minister, in one of his more pixilated moments on the C.B.C., promised that he was going to have a flag by Christmas. Why? It was not a matter of life or death. No one was going to suffer if the decision on the flag were delayed until January or until next spring or until next summer. What was the urgency in this matter? Many more urgent matters affecting the lives, the welfare and the well-being of the Canadian people are on the order paper that are not being dealt with because the flag has preoccupied our time. What was the hurry? What was the urgency?
Only three weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister on the orders of the day if he would agree to leave the flag debate until we had at least dealt with the national labour code, which after all affects the welfare of 650,000 workers in Canada who come under federal jurisdiction. The Prime Minister said no, that we had to deal with the flag. What we have had is one blunder after another and now

the supreme folly of all, in my opinion, the forcing of a decision by means of closure.
I am not opposed to closure when it becomes necessary on legislation whose passage means improving the lot of the Canadian people. If the Canada pension plan or the national labour code or a medicare plan or some other plan upon which the Canadian people were waiting were involved, if there had been adequate time for debate and expression of opinion by all groups in the house, and if some obstreperous minority was holding it up, I would support closure. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that closure on a flag, closure on something about which there was no urgency, closure on something which is an emotionally charged issue that touches people's lives and beliefs and faith, is a totally different thing. After all, a nation only selects a flag once in its history. Surely it ought to be allowed to take time to make that selection after due reflection.
In respect of the navy bill in 1913 and the pipe line legislation of 1956, both of which have left scars on the political life of Canada, there was at least the excuse that there was a deadline to be met, but on the flag question there was no deadline at all to be met except the deadline established by the Prime Minister's own promise that we would have a flag by Christmas. The only real issue at stake was that parliament had to conform to the Prime Minister's timetable in order to maintain the Prime Minister's reputation and enhance his vanity.
I do not mean by what I am saying that I condone the filibuster which has been carried on by the Progressive Conservative party over a long period of time. I respect their point of view although I do not agree with it. I think they had adequate time to express their opinions repeatedly, and they did so. But I think there comes a time when there ought to be a decision and I think they would have been wise to have allowed parliament to make a decision long before this. But the sad thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we have had in this parliament the spectacle of the present Prime Minister saying "we are going to have a flag by Christmas" and the former prime minister of Canada saying "you are not going to have a flag by Christmas".


An hon. Member:: What do you say?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My friend says "what do you say". I think Canadians deserve something better than this from their two major political leaders. That is what I think. I think the spectacle we have witnessed in recent 20220-7021
Canadian Flag
weeks has reduced parliament to a farce. It has been a childish exhibition that has done this country no good.
The thing that concerns me most, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure it must concern the Prime Minister, is that the two things he was hoping to accomplish by introducing this flag have been destroyed by the method which has been used to bring the matter to a decision. The first thing the Prime Minister was hoping to accomplish was to establish national unity. I do not think that the action taken today will do anything to enhance national unity.
Last week the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) were suggesting closure. I make an appeal to my French Canadian friends. I say to them very frankly that we English speaking people in Canada have too often and too long been callously insensitive to the susceptibilities of the French Canadian people. We acknowledge that and we ought to apologize for it. We ought to try to rectify it. But, Mr. Speaker, it must also work both ways. I ask the French Canadian members who are crying for closure to stop and ask themselves this question. If the committee had recommended the union jack or the red ensign and the members from Quebec had been speaking out vigorously against it, as I am sure some of them would have, would they have asked for closure or supported closure? I do not think so.
I am not one of those who thinks this flag is a concession to Quebec. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that the great bulk of the English speaking people in Canada will support this single maple leaf design. However, I would remind the French Canadian members that there is an English speaking minority, with whose views I do not concur, but I respect those views and I am prepared to fight for their right to have those views; and it seems to me that imposing closure is not likely to improve the feeling between the two founding races and is not going to promote national unity.


Léon Balcer: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. Does he consider that the French Canadian members are restricting the freedom of speech of the English speaking members when, after 200 speeches, they ask for an opportunity for the house to take a decision?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, my hon. friend ought to have more influence in stopping some of those speeches than I am likely to have. However,

Canadian Flag
I agree with him that when a debate has gone on a long time everybody gets sick and tired of it. I am suggesting when you are trying to select a flag, which you select only once in the lifetime of a nation, you will be far better to put the matter aside and let the idea become familiar, to see if you cannot find some basis upon which you can get a greater consensus than that which obtains at the present time.
I have only two minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and I want to make my last point. The other purpose the Prime Minister was hoping to accomplish by introducing this flag was to get general acceptance across Canada. I think that the government had a golden opportunity to have introduced a flag that would have given voice to Canadians' sense of pride in their country. Instead of that, we are in danger of having a flag which is going to be launched in bitterness. I hope not.


An hon. Member:: Why mention it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member says, "Why mention it?". I fear for the reaction to a flag that is hoisted by closure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that according to the information received from the table his time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent of the house to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I may have two minutes; I was interrupted a great deal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the house would allow the hon. member two additional minutes to compensate for the interruptions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wanted to say that in my opinion only a government which had lost its sense of values, which had become obsessed with a political death wish, would have compounded its long list of blunders by the supreme folly of invoking closure on a measure so emotionally charged as the flag. I hope I am wrong. I hope that any bitterness or any rancour that has been aroused will be forgotten. I pledge myself and the party with which I am associated that we will not only vote for this flag but we will do everything in our power to get the Canadian people to support it-to support it as their flag. We will do all we can to get people persuaded to put any bitterness or enmity behind them and to push on to the future, to build the

kind of country over which that flag will fly as a symbol of Canada's greatness, its peace and its prosperity.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks made by the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) and to those of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) concerning the adoption of a distinctive national flag.
The hon. member who just resumed his seat said a while ago that the understanding between English speaking and French speaking Canadians must be effected in relation to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but according to the information which has just been handed to the Chair, the hon. member for Villeneuve already took part in the debate on the amendment when he spoke Friday afternoon, December 11 last. According to standing orders, he cannot speak twice on this amendment.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you if we are on the amendment or on the main motion?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. We are on the
amendment. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) now has the floor.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the opportunity to speak on the amendment under consideration but I feel that our party's point of view must be put forward on this last night of the flag debate.
I would say that one sentence in particular caught my attention, if not several, in the speech the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Douglas) has just made. He asked us to be patient; he said that a flag is chosen only once in a lifetime, that a decision must be postponed if there is not unanimous agreement in this house. And yet, a few minutes before, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam had congratulated the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for taking today a step which none of his predecessors had dared take about a distinctive national flag.
Talk of a distinctive national flag is nothing new. Henri Bourassa brought the matter up in this house in 1910 and 1911, but, at that time, they did exactly what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam proposed a while ago. The issue was put aside for lack of unanimity.

How many times, under the R. B. Bennett administration, from 1930 to 1935, did hon. Senator Pouliot say he himself had introduced, before the war, a motion for the adoption of a distinctive national flag? That was 30 years ago, and his resolution was shelved until there could be some degree of unanimity.
How many other members of this house, in 1944, 1945, every year for the last 20 or 30 years, have put forward a motion in this house for the adoption of a distinctive flag? But such a motion was never agreed to in the past on the grounds that there was not enough unanimity.
Today if the Prime Minister were to withdraw his motion or shelve it, I ask every member of this house, and particularly the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), when we would ever have this distinctive national flag?
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said that this is something which is given but once in the life of a nation, but how old must our nation be before we can fly this flag? Must we wait until we become more deeply mired in old traditions before we adopt this flag? We have been oblivious about this flag long enough. I do not approve the Prime Minister on many other points, but I do not hesitate to say that I support him unreservedly on this point, since he was courageous enough to introduce his measure, resist all pressures and maintain his intention to give the people of Canada a distinctive national flag.
Our attitude in this respect is very clear. These eternal discussions have lasted long enough, even too long, putting off until tomorrow a distinctive national flag and a national anthem for Canada, because we are convinced that such feelings reflect a true Canadianism, and we want this to become a fact.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and others before him have made a pathetic appeal in favour of good relations between English and French speaking Canadians. But how can English Canadians and French Canadians endeavour to understand each other? This understanding must work both ways.


William Heward Grafftey: That's right, it must work both ways.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, here is a question I want to ask all members of this house: Which of the two groups has done more toward good understanding? The English Canadian group or the French Canadian group? During the 17 years the
Canadian Flag
hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was premier of his province, during the 17 years he held that post, how were French Canadians treated in his province, with regard to the school question, as compared to English Canadians in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I be allowed to suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe that the comments he is now making are beyond the limits of our discussion?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if my comments are not within the ambit of this debate, then why was the matter brought up a while ago? Since I am only speaking about objections raised earlier, I think my remarks are in order. If a previous speaker was allowed to express his views on the subject, I feel I am also entitled to voice my opinion.
Mr. Speaker, understanding between English Canadians and French Canadians must work both ways, because this is essential in order to come to an agreement. It must be like the wheels of an engine on railroad tracks; they must turn in the same direction, not one in one direction and the other in the opposite direction.
What has happened since confederation? Can the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam tell me that French Canadians have not made every effort in the province of Quebec to co-operate with and understand the English element? I claim that they have done as much and even much more than the English Canadian governments in the other provinces, including the Saskatchewan government during the 17 years when the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was premier. Had he asked the French Canadians in his province if they were treated as well as the English Canadians in our province, I do not think he would have made that pathetic appeal a while ago, because I think we have done more than our share and I think we have worked for Canadian unity. If the question comes up today, it is not because we have not done our share, but perhaps because efforts have not been made for Canadian unity in all parts of the country.
Maybe there have been some extremists on one side, but there have been some on the other also. We are asked this question: Had the committee proposed the red ensign or the union jack, would you have supported it or would you not have fought to the death? In answer to that objection, I would say this: We have had it for 97 years, we have accepted it for 97 years. Today, English speaking Canadians are not being asked to

Canadian Flag
become French Canadians but to become just plain Canadians. We are prepared to fight so that each and every one of us may become Canadians. We have been lukewarm Canadians long enough, Canadians too closely connected with other countries, while we believe that Canada must be really independent, as mentioned by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
I admit that objections have been raised regarding the selection of a flag design. But when have you seen a country select a flag by means of a national referendum or a vote of members of parliament? Canada would be the first country to do this. The value of a flag does not depend on its colour, on what is on it or on its design, but on what it symbolizes. A flag represents a country where you feel at home, for that is the definition of the motherland. The motherland is where you love to live, where you feel at home. That is what a flag should represent. It is not a picture, a photograph or a drawing, it is something representing the motherland, and I have just defined what is the motherland.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the selection of a flag we should not pay too much attention to unimportant details, but rather try to design something which we will fly as a symbol of the motherland where everybody will be glad to live, that is in an independent Canada constituted by Canadians of different races, but races getting along with one another. And it is true that races can get along together.
Since the beginning of the debate on the flag, I had the opportunity of talking with Conservative members who rose in the house to express opinions which were flabbergasting to a genuine Canadian citizen, but when I had a friendly chat with them, understanding was possible. How is it that understanding is possible between two individuals of different races but that this understanding becomes practically impossible when one takes the floor to speak on behalf of a political party in the house? That is the whole question. To answer that question is answering the important question of Canadian unity.
When she was last in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen said that one's own patriotism should not keep one from understanding the patriotism of others.
Mr. Speaker, I quite understand that many Canadians will see with regret, even with sorrow, the red ensign lowered to be replaced by a new flag. However, Mr. Speaker, if they truly love their country, they will understand that they are saluting more than a flag, that

they are indeed saluting the country in which they live. I admit and understand the grief, the sorrow they will feel; still, emotions and feelings must not always dictate our conduct. They should rather try to look to the future of Canada, without forgetting the past, our forefathers' heritage.
We should think in terms of a great country, a country that wants to develop itself, in short a country, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said-and I agree with him on this point-which may become greater than those which contributed to its foundation and development. But, if we are to vote once in our lifetime on a flag, let us do it, at least, while we are still alive.
Mr. Speaker, we do not consider this matter as a quarrel between French Canadians and English Canadians, but we believe that the debate on the flag will have been a tremendous test concerning the future of mutual understanding and unity in Canada. It will have been a test of understanding between our Canadian citizens, in short, between the two main races which make up this country.
And if one wonders about the success of this test about the mutual understanding which may exist in Canada, there is certainly no cause for rejoicing, because we find that, before thinking as statesmen, too many members tried to play politics with this matter. Therefore, I think that the test of the flag debate is a lamentable failure and only served to point out that there was still too great a divergence of opinions in this country.
But we shall have a flag. It will be perhaps unfortunately voted in by applying closure. But if the closure rule had not been imposed, when would we have had this flag? Perhaps never, and it would have been shelved once and for all.
But, the flag once adopted by parliament, we hope that everybody will say: This is now Canada's flag, let us now work for Canada's growth and development, so that we, and the future generations can be proud of it.
This will promote throughout the country a better Canadian spirit and, therefore, a better understanding between Canada's two great races.


Hugh John Flemming: Today we have seen most unusual and, I believe, unfortunate developments in connection with the question of our national flag.
The amendment we are presently considering, as proposed by my hon. friend from Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) reads as follows:

That the sixth report of the special committee be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to strike out in paragraph 7 all the words after "Canada" and substitute "be the Canadian red ensign."
Acceptance of this amendment would mean that paragraph 7 of the committee report would read:
Your committee therefore recommends that the flag to be designated as the national flag of Canada be the Canadian red ensign.
I do not think it will be any news to hon. members of this house when I say I have no hesitation whatsoever in favouring paragraph 7 as amended.
I wish now to refer to the speech which was made by my hon. friend from Middlesex West on Friday, because I feel he outlined in that speech the objective of every member of this house. I have no hesitation in saying he represented my views to the fullest possible extent. I quote from his remarks as reported on page 11023.
The party to which I have the honour to belong, in common with all other parties in the house, is doing, I believe, whatever it can to promote national unity in this country. Opinions may differ as to how national unity can best be promoted. There are honest differences of opinion regarding the procedure which should be adopted with this end in view. Our party has taken the stand that for the government to impose a flag by a vote of this house is not the best way to promote national unity. We have the right to present our view and to urge our view upon all hon. members of the house. We wish national unity-
In my opinion the proposition that we shall have national unity in the present circumstances, especially in the circumstances of closure, is a misleading one and the action now being taken by the government will not bring about the result which is generally desired. I wish to quote from today's copy of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald in support of this view. The writer is a distinguished member of the press gallery, Mr. Eric Dennis, and he has this to say in connection with the whole matter of national unity and what is likely to happen if the committee's report is accepted. He says:
What will be the reaction when the maple leaf flag is hoisted over the peace tower, over every federal building, every military installation, every military cemetery in which Canada's war dead lie buried, at the United Nations, every Canadian embassy abroad and at NATO, as will be required once the new banner is officially proclaimed?
Will there be the embracing of it from sea to sea which Prime Minister Pearson so eloquently pleaded for in his final speech on the issue Friday?
Will there be, as Holmes said "one flag, one land, one heart, one hand?"
Canadian Flag
The writer has certainly asked a most pertinent series of questions. In the same article he proceeds to answer them. He says:
British Columbia Premier W. A. C. Bennett already has promised that four flags will fly by official sanction over the legislative buildings at Victoria-his province's own banner, the maple leaf design, the red ensign and the union jack.
Quebec is certain to keep the fleur-de-lis flying for years to come despite the insistence of its federal representatives that it did not want even this emblem incorporated in the new Canadian flag.
It will take a good time before the red ensign comes down in the maritimes and many other parts of Canada.
And Newfoundland's Premier J. R. Smallwood has made it plain the full union jack will not be pulled down over his island.
If this is an indication of what is expected should this motion pass, and we assume it will, it seems to me the government has taken a tremendous responsibility on its shoulders.
Some members may be wondering why I should reiterate my support for the red ensign, a stand I have taken many times in this chamber. This evening my hon. friend and next door neighbour here, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Mar-tineau) quoted from Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator. I intend to quote the same great statesman. Abraham Lincoln at one stage in his career uttered these words-they are very short but they are very potent and most pertinent to this subject. He said: "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards out of men". I do not propose there should be any doubt in the minds of anyone in this chamber or in Canada about where I stand on this particular question.
The recent development to which I referred a few minutes ago was this decision to use closure which would put an end to the debate on the amendment favouring the red ensign. Hon. members may properly ask: do you favour closure? I find myself saying that I do not favour closure when it has the effect of discarding a flag which has been used as the national flag of Canada to a greater or lesser degree for almost 100 years. This is one time when I do not think closure is justified. I agree with my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) that there are times, when important legislation is being held up with an ulterior purpose in mind, when closure may be justified. I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) who said that this was a time when closure was not justified, especially in view of the amendment now proposed. I do not question the advantage of

Canadian Flag
closure when used in the national interest, but in this case I think-and I say this advisedly-that the contemplated action does not qualify under the general heading of what is good for Canada.
I said in a previous speech that the changing of the flag of a country was in the same category as changing its constitution, and I repeat those words. This action should never be taken on a mere majority vote. I also said in a previous speech that changing a flag which has been in use for something like 100 years is a responsibility which should not be taken as a result of a majority vote taken of 265 members of parliament. I know there is a great deal of difference of opinion on this matter, but I think the reasons for not changing a flag without a great deal of consideration and deliberation cannot be challenged.
I am one of those who listened to the speech of the Prime Minister on Friday last most attentively, but I found myself taking exception to many of his conclusions. He quoted words attributed to Mr. Speaker Lemieux and he acknowledged they were a moving illustration of what is best in our history. But he also stated that they were an indication of how history changes and that we should not ignore the lessons of history when we support Canadian symbols for Canadian nationality. My contention in this connection is that we do not eliminate historical symbols in the process of incorporating what the Prime Minister referred to as Canadian symbols. Surely there is no need to eliminate all that is good and which we treasure in the past in order to incorporate something into our flag.
In this connection I want to quote an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette for this morning which talks about the division of the country. In speaking of this division the editorial says:
It recalls the saying of Mr. Louis St. Laurent, when he was prime minister, that he would not introduce a new flag until he was satisfied that it would do more to unite than to divide the country. To be ready to divide the house hut not the country suggests an embarrassment over the issue. Yet it remains true that in avoiding a flag election the government is acting wisely. Whether the government was as wise in getting itself into its present position is another matter.
That, Mr. Speaker, is where I say the government has made a tremendous mistake. As I have said many times, and as other hon. members have said, it is the government's handling of this whole question to which we object.

I should like to draw the attention of the house to the order in council which was passed in 1945, and I do so only to refer to the second paragraph thereof, which in my opinion is a vital paragraph. After the usual preamble the second paragraph states:
That the Canadian red ensign was employed by Canadian forces during the present war;-
That was one of the reasons for carrying into operation this order in council by which the use of the Canadian red ensign was made legal within and without Canada. That reason has stood for the last 20 years and still stands today.
What has happened, Mr. Speaker, to bring about this change? In view of the special mention which the Canadian red ensign received in that order in council, this house should hesitate for a long time before interfering with the aims and objectives of the order in council itself. According to the Prime Minister, as reported at page 11032 of Hansard he said:
It was not until 1945... that the union jack was replaced by the red ensign as an official flag for Canada. At that time we all remember that a great many sincere people in Canada opposed that change. Many who are now worried about the change from the red ensign were worried about a change from the union jack, but I think we all agree now that this was a desirable and an inevitable stage in our national progression.
I am sure everyone will agree with that; there is no question about it. But, Mr. Speaker, how can we ever justify the discarding and destroying of the symbols in our flag under which the same progression to which the Prime Minister refers has been made? Why do you throw something away under which you have made great progress, and substitute something else for it? Why should it be eliminated?
Then the Prime Minister went on to say that the order in council was made pending only a decision of the committee which had been set up at that time. I do not know how long the committee took to report; one of the hon. members who spoke this afternoon stated it took a year and a half. However, it did report following a majority vote of 23 to 1. It recommended that a golden maple leaf replace the Canadian coat of arms.
I would draw to the attention of the house the fact that the prime minister of that day, Right Hon. Mackenzie King, did not implement the report of that committee. The house never had before it a motion for concurrence in that committee's report. I am one of those who think the prime minister of that day had good reason for not doing

this, and I give him full marks in that regard.
Then in 1948, after allowing the red ensign to remain the national flag of Canada and to fly at home and abroad, Mr. Mackenzie King was replaced by Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent as prime minister of Canada. Mr. St. Laurent continued in office until 1957, a period of nine years, and Mr. St. Laurent did not change the Canadian flag. And I have no doubt that Mr. St. Laurent also had good reason for leaving it alone.
We now find this government coming into office, and one of the first things it does is to bring before the house this motion, and it does so in such a partisan way that it seems as though it is going to have a very adverse effect upon the unity of our nation. The government presented a motion for a design to this parliament last spring consisting of three maple leaves conjoined on one stem. It was presented to the house by the Prime Minister in an eloquent speech. Many speeches were made from this side in opposition to it. There were a few speeches in support of it. Many points were made in connection with it. Then agreement was reached to refer it to a committee. A majority report of the committee did not favour the three maple leaf design as approved by the Prime Minister, his government and their supporters, but recommended another design. Now the government, the Prime Minister and his supporters seem to be quite willing to concur in the report of that committee, even though that committee did not concur with the original submission made by the government to this parliament. They changed their ideas completely and seem today apparently to have lost interest. They discarded the three maple leaf design as quickly or quicker than they discarded the Canadian red ensign. They have now become enthusiastic about the one maple leaf flag. There has been a complete right-about-face which leads us properly to interpret their main intention as being to eliminate the union jack from its place on our flag. We have been using that union jack in an official capacity for almost 20 years, and for almost 100 years to a greater or lesser degree.
In the course of the Prime Minister's remarks, as they are recorded at page 11036, he said:
Unfortunately there has been a great deal of depreciation and sneering about the maple leaf as an emblem on a flag. I do not understand why hon. members opposite take that attitude toward this symbolism of Canadianism. I suggest it is unfortunate that the impression has been created in certain areas and quarters that the maple leaf is not worthy of being a national symbol of Canada 20220-703
Canadian Flag
on a flag, and I hope that when the dust of the debate has cleared away, if this recommendation carries, we will all be proud of the fact that the central feature of our flag is a red maple leaf.
In connection with the modified red ensign I should like to refer to the fact that when the committee was voting on different designs one vote related to a design which had a maple leaf in the centre. That flag had the very thing incorporated in it about which the Prime Minister said in his speech there was some prejudice. The committee did vote on a motion to support a flag with a maple leaf in the centre, with symbols of French and English heritage on either side, but that design did not carry in the committee. I mention that fact simply because it refutes the argument made by the Prime Minister that there is some prejudice against the red maple leaf as such.
Mr. Speaker, I see you nodding your head, and you have been very kind to me, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I should like to refer to many other things, but I appreciate the attention which I have received from all hon. members of this house and will now take my seat.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to refer to one or two things which have been mentioned earlier by preceding speakers. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) referred to the fact that there had been 22 days of debate on the previous resolution and 11 days debate, including today, on the present motion to concur in the sixth report of the committee. I should like to stress very strongly that the 22 days of debate took place on a resolution to adopt the three maple leaf design. The present debate is related to the one maple leaf flag. I do not understand why we should be criticized for debating this issue to the extent we have debated it, and I admit it has been rather a long debate, in view of the fact that we believe this is the most serious subject that has come before this parliament for consideration.
Certain editorials across this country have criticized us for delaying the adoption of a flag. They have pointed out that we have debated 22 days on the first flag and 11 days on this motion for concurrence. The two debates dealt with two flags, both sponsored by the government. We ask the question: Which flag does the government want? It is obvious that the government has no answer to that question.
I believe the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) said this evening that it was very important to have something overseas

Canadian Flag
which could be recognized as Canada's own distinctive national flag. I am sure the Canadian red ensign is known abroad as Canada's national flag. In relation to that which people in embassies and other places overseas think about a national flag, what do the 19 million Canadian people who live in Canada, and who might never have the opportunity of travelling abroad, think about the national flag? It is those people and their opinions about which I am concerned. I feel very strongly that we are dealing tonight with an issue which affects the hearts and souls of every Canadian. There are different points of view on this subject and I appreciate the points of view of those who do not agree with me. However, I cannot understand why we who stand for what has been Canada's national flag should be entirely deprived of any semblance of that flag on any proposed flag.
Tonight is the third time I have taken part in the debate on the flag issue. Perhaps I should receive one of the hats given out by that pinhead down in the corner; however, he is not in his seat at the moment. He took part in the debate a short time ago and I presume that he feels, having said what he did say, everything of importance has been said. As a consequence of that feeling he has left the chamber.
I make no apology for taking part again in this debate on the amendment to the motion to concur in the sixth report of the committee. I spoke first on August 24, at which time I outlined clearly my position on the flag issue. I would like to repeat some of the statements I made on that occasion, but unfortunately time will not permit me to do so. I do not back down from any statement I made on that occasion, and I state again that my position today regarding the whole national flag issue and the Canadian red ensign is as I stated it to be on that occasion.
Having sat as a member of the committee, which worked arduously for six weeks studying the whole situation, I had the honour to speak again on November 30 and move an amendment which called for a plebiscite. I do not intend to go into the pros and cons of holding a plebiscite, as they have been clearly set out on many occasions. All I can say in that regard is that the amendment was defeated, and we accept that fact. At the moment, Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an amendment moved by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) to the same motion to concur and the vote on that amendment will in effect decide whether or not we are going to continue to have the red ensign.
[Mr. Monteith.J
Those who vote against this amendment are going to vote to tear down the red ensign; let there be no mistake about that.
My main reason for speaking now at all is that we are now going to lose the red ensign which this country has known in so many emotional circumstances. I have to agree that from the sense of the house tonight this is what will happen, no matter what may be said. We know their minds are made up. They are sitting stony faced across the way. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), the Solicitor General (Mr. Mac-Naught), the purveyor of bumper stickers- there are not too many of them on the ministerial benches at this moment-they are all going to vote us down. I know that. However, I think we should be entitled to our last plea and our last fight. I do not think we should be chastised for putting up that fight.
I am going to be very frank and say that I do not think enough has been said in the press media about where the real fault lies for the present situation. Let us say that those who wish a new flag have every right so to wish. I am not quarrelling with those who wish a new flag. I am not quarrelling in the least with those who promote it. But surely others have the right to disagree. Surely those who have grown up with and have known no other flag have a right to disagree with respect to a new flag. Surely we have the right simply to maintain what we have now. What is wrong with that?
I claim that generally speaking the press has not been fair in fixing blame on a particular party for having caused disunity in Canada. Let us face it. We certainly have greater division and disunity today than we had last May when the flag question was introduced. There is no question about that. The government, Mr. Speaker, is completely responsible for this situation. All that the President of the Privy Council does is to get up and move closure. Let him get up and make a speech as to what he thinks of the whole situation.
They are responsible for the whole situation, Mr. Speaker. Surely when they first raised this question, particularly in the manner they did, they must have realized what would happen. They could have introduced this question in a more reasonable manner. We know that. They must have realized what would happen, but they just did not care. It is the same old arrogance dating back to 1956. I should like to refer to an editorial in today's Montreal Gazette to which the

hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) referred a little while ago. I should like to read one sentence:
It recalls the saying of Mr. Louis St. Laurent, when he was prime minister, that he would not introduce a new flag until he was satisfied that it would do more to unite than to divide the country.
This is the point. You know very well, Mr. Speaker, that this whole flag question has done more to divide than to unite. Mr. St. Laurent knew that and so did his predecessor in office. They were very well aware of the situation. I should like to make one other reference. I trust I am not taking too much of the time of the house. I should like to refer to an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of last Saturday.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not know who yelled "order" over there, but get up on your feet and make a speech like a man.


John James Greene: If it was anything like yours I would sit down.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You are much better sitting down.


John James Greene: So are you, but you do not know it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to refer to this editorial because it accuses me as one of the Conservatives on the flag committee of having abandoned the red ensign. It reads in part as follows:
The committee rejected the red ensign. Even the Conservative members of the committee abandoned the ensign and suggested a modified maple leaf flag-
This is an absolutely false statement. Today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) had reason to rise on a question of privilege about an editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail. I suppose I might well have got up on a question of privilege and raised this matter at that time. This statement is absolutely false. We never at any time abandoned the Canadian red ensign. When the matter was put to a vote we were defeated and after we were defeated we then tried to come up with a compromise which certainly was not acceptable either to the group across the way or to those down in the corner to my left.
I have read that there were only three choices open to the government, depending upon the viewpoint, I suppose. Some say two and some say three. The first was to abandon the plan, the second to impose closure and 20220-7034
Canadian Flag
the third to have a plebiscite at the next election. We have discussed the matter of a plebiscite and as I said earlier I am not going to pursue that subject any further. The house has made its decision on it and I am willing to accept that decision, much as I dislike doing so. As a matter of fact, I believe the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) made some reference tonight to the fact that the matter might have been best decided by a referendum. If he said that, then I accuse him of at least some ambiguity in his thinking because he did not vote for a plebiscite when he had the chance to do so.
I come back to the point that some say there were two choices open to the government and some say there were three. However, the government has made its choice and has imposed closure. I claim it has done so only to save the government's face because this vote will cause much more disunity in Canada than anything that has happened before in my memory. I am quite convinced that if the government could see its way to abandon the matter even at this late date it would do a great deal of good. I know they are not going to do so, but I just cannot say strongly enough how much good I think such an action would do for Canada.
The argument over the flag has been going on over the last several months, though I agree in a somewhat spotty manner; but at the same time I strongly believe that the only solution is for the government to withdraw its proposal so that more disunity will not be created, because that is where we are heading when the vote takes place tonight. We started out with three leaves and we spent 22 days on that flag. Now we have the one leaf design and we are on the eleventh day. This is not compromise. Let us be reasonable. Positions have hardened. Sure, the Prime Minister has said this is supposed to be an open vote. What kind of an open vote is this? Do not let us be ridiculous. He declared it was not an open vote many long months ago. The other day during the debate he suggested perhaps it could be an open vote.
Positions in this House of Commons have hardened, Mr. Speaker. There is no possibility of an open vote today. There is no doubt about it that parliament and the country must now accept an imposed verdict, an imposed flag. This is all there is to it. It is as simple as that. There are not too many members here even on the backbenches of the Liberal party, and very few on the treasury benches, who had the actual experience as I did of going through closure back in 1956.

Canadian Flag
I know the government wishes to forget that. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has indicated he would have liked to forget it. At one time he would have been willing to dispose of it. We have a new crop here today with the same mentality. They simply feel they have a divine right to rule. They will never learn.
I claim, Mr. Speaker, that this is our last stand for the Canadian red ensign, this flag which has been our country's flag for so many years, which has meant so much to practically everybody in Canada. I do not care from where they come, this flag has still meant a great deal to practically everybody. I come back now to an earlier statement I made. This government has done more by this particular manoeuvre, by bringing this whole question up as it has at the time it did, and in the way it did, to create disunity in Canada than anything else that could happen in this country. I only make a plea for those who do have some feeling for our past. I heard these views expressed by members from the other side in the committee. Could we not get together, could we not have something of the past as well as the present? I heard this view expressed. It has all gone by the board. We have nothing left that we can remember of our traditions, our heritage, part of our lives.
If this government had only waited. Sure, they ask, why do you want to wait? The Prime Minister said, what do you want to do, wait one year, two years or three years? I say, wait ten years until all the old codgers like myself are dead and gone, and then this question could be readily settled. Today it is causing a great deal of trouble. I see, Mr. Speaker, you have just received a slip suggesting that my time is up so I will resume my seat.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resiigouche-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, as the two previous hon. members who spoke, it was my privilege also to serve on the flag committee.
I should like to take part in the final stage of this debate. First of all, I wish to state that working on the flag committee was an experience which I will not soon forget. You cannot associate yourself with 14 other members of the house for a period of six weeks, meeting two or three times a day, without gaining some knowledge, making new friendships and leaving something of yourself behind. These 14 members, Mr. Speaker, represented widely different areas of the country. They expressed their feelings and the aspirations of a cross

section of Canada. We learned to respect, if not to share entirely, our individual views. We spoke freely. I feel that I came out from the committee richer for the experience and in knowledge. I believe we all came out better Canadians.
It had been hoped and even expected, Mr. Speaker, that we should come from the flag committee with a unanimous report. It is unfortunate that we did not come out with a unanimous report. Under the circumstances, I feel that it could not be so. To insist on a unanimous decision or a virtually unanimous decision, or to insist on an 80 per cent or 90 per cent majority, in my opinion, would not be democracy; it would be a virtual minority dictatorship. I say that if only the members of this house who were elected with 80 per cent or 90 per cent majority had been allowed to speak in this debate the filibuster would have been very short indeed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we were very surprised, and indeed saddened, to hear some hon. members opposite say that the members of the Liberal party on that committee were under instructions to carry out the orders and signals received from the outside. This is not the case. Speaking for myself, I entered the committee with an open mind. I left at the door both the government's model and the red ensign. I started from scratch. My worry was not to find ways and means of preserving the red ensign. My ambition was not to impose the government design. My sole desire was to learn, to secure knowledge in heraldry, in history, and to try to end up with a design which would be technically correct, beautiful to see and truly Canadian. This is what we did.

Mr. Speaker, the task assigned to us seemed very difficult at first. But after listening to the opinions of experts in heraldry, history and economics, we soon began to grasp the essential characteristics a truly Canadian flag should have. Three basic principles were established:
1. We found that, according to the royal proclamation of King George V, in 1921, the two national colours were white and red, and in support of this first principle, let me quote from the royal proclamation itself, as it appears in this booklet published by the Department of the Secretary of State and entitled "The Arms of Canada".

A Proclamation Declaring His Majesty's Pleasure Concerning the Ensigns Armorial of the Dominion of Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, allow me to refer to the proceedings of the flag committee of 1945 and to quote a short excerpt from the testimony of a witness, Colonel Duguid D.S.O. an army historian of the Department of National Defence. Colonel Duguid read the royal proclamation of George V of which I have just read an excerpt and he then explained those excerpts as follows:

And upon a Royal helmet mantled argent doubled gules the crest, that is to say, on a wreath of the colours argent and gules a lion passant guar-dant or imperially crowned proper and holding in the dexter paw a maple leaf gules.
That is the full verbatim text. It may sound like nonsense but it enables anyone who understands to draw and colour a picture, complete in every detail. It resembles a doctor's prescription. It is either understood or it is complete nonsense. Cleared of confusing terms and items, and written in plain language, with argent translated as white and gules translated as red, the vital part of the proclamation would read: "The King, at the request of Canada, assigns to Canada the national colours white and red."

Moreover, on February 5, 1963, that is the very day the previous Conservative government was defeated, the following answer was given to question No. 1,449 which asked:
Does Canada have national colours and, if so, what are they?
Answer: Yes, Canada has national colours, which are white and red.
Therefore, as a first principle, the two national colours are white and red.
We also reached our decision on the basis of this second principle: the only really Canadian symbol is the maple leaf. Besides, the great majority of designs submitted to us included either one or three' maple leaves; and those designs came from every part of the country, mostly outside the province of Quebec.
The third principle by which we were finally guided to decide on the flag design is that heraldry does not allow the juxtaposition of colours or metals, that is one colour cannot be put on another and one metal cannot be put on another. Moreover, the only metals
Canadian Flag
recognized in heraldry are gold and silver, that is yellow and white.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it was a matter of applying those principles to the problem submitted to us. The conclusions can be found in the committee report, and I quote the main conclusions which were finally reached by way of elimination.
(a)	The three maple leaf design was retained by a vote of 8 to 6.
(b)	The single maple leaf design was retained by a vote of 13 to 1.
(c)	The design containing the union jack and/or the fleur-de-lis was rejected by a vote of 9 to 5.
Then, the committee had to choose between the three maple leaf design and the single maple leaf design, and another vote was taken. As we know, the single maple leaf design was retained by a vote of 14 to 0. However, it should be added that, on a last vote to determine whether or not the committee accepted finally and definitely the last design, the result of the vote was 10 to 4.
Mr. Speaker, shortly after the committee on the flag had done its work, I had the honour and privilege to lead the Canadian delegates to NATO on a visit of the Canadian military bases in Germany and then to the NATO parliamentary conference in Paris; later on, we were the guests of the Berlin government. Before leaving, I took great care to place in my pocket a model of the flag chosen by the committee. And wherever I went, I showed it to the officers, the soldiers and the Canadians in Paris. On every single occasion, without any exceptions, the servicemen, from high ranking officers to buck privates, as well as Canadians in Paris, expressed their delight with the design chosen by the committee and all were happy to have a Canadian flag.


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


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Certainly, as soon as I have finished my speech.
Before I left, Mr. Speaker, I met a high ranking officer in the Canadian army who told me that if the Canadian troops in Cyprus had a Canadian flag, many of their difficulties would be eliminated. In fact, in several instances the Canadian troops in Cyprus had to paint the word "Canada" on the walls which surrounded their encampments in order to avoid the shots which were intended for others. This means that the members of this

Canadian Flag
house who claim that our soldiers do not wish a new flag should obtain their information at the true source.
Mr. Speaker, I know that four members of the committee, who proved so by their vote in the house, preferred the red ensign. It is their right, it is their privilege, and I respect their intentions. But they must respect the decision of others.
I also know that about 60 and perhaps more members in the House of Commons have preference for the red ensign. It is their right and their privilege, but they must take into consideration the wishes of the other 200 members. By their persistence in delaying intentionally the adoption of a new Canadian flag,
I feel they throw our democratic mechanism out of gear, they make a mockery of parliament and they will have to answer for their actions before the people one day.
Mr. Speaker, the flag debate has been going on for 34 days. A committee was set up at the specific request of the Leader of the Opposition. This committee sat during six weeks, for a total of 45 hours. The question has been exhausted.
It seems to me the time has now come for all of us, and especially for those who have been telling us for weeks that they want to safeguard national unity, to support in this house this truly Canadian flag design and to salute it with pride when it becomes our new Canadian flag.


Donald MacInnis: I just want to take time enough to ask the hon. member whether he would now answer a question. I understood him to say that while travelling overseas, showing the design which was the choice of the flag committee to high ranking officers and other employees of the Canadian government in Europe and soliciting opinions on it, he had received favourable replies from those high ranking officers. I wonder if I understood him right. Did the hon. member say he had received favourable replies from all those high ranking officers and others down to the simplest privates. Is that what the hon. member said?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Does the hon. member ask me whether all those to whom I talked about the flag and all those to whom I showed the design approved it? That is the case. They were all in favour-unanimous. I have not met a single person who did not like the model and who was not happy with it.


Donald MacInnis: Such being the case, does the hon. gentleman not think that his reference to Canadian privates serving overseas in the Canadian army as "simple" is a disgraceful one and reflects a ridiculous attitude on the part of the hon. member?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The only ridiculous comment is the one we have just heard.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I realize that the guillotine of closure has been raised and is ready to drop but I rise nevertheless to speak in favour of the amendment which has been introduced whereby we would instruct the flag committee to report back in favour of the retention of the Canadian red ensign as Canada's national flag.
In rising at this time I also wish to protest against the imposition of closure by a vote of the house which does not represent the majority of the voters of the Dominion of Canada. I voted against the imposition of closure this afternoon because I do not feel that closure should be applied by a government aided by the supporters it can find elsewhere in the house when the members of parliament themselves do not command the majority of the voters behind them. We have been told there is a mandate out for a Canadian flag. There has never been a plebiscite placed before the people asking them to express their views on Canada's national flag. We are simply told we have a mandate to change the present flag.
No practical politician would desire to lay too much stress upon the mandate theory of a general election. There are men who have been elected to this house because they are residents of the ridings in which they ran. Others have been elected because they have advocated some diversion of waters in British Columbia to the prairies; others because they had promised additional authority for the Department of Fisheries. There are 265 members of this house and there are 300 or 400 reasons why they are here. There is no underlying mandate given to the 265 members to impose a flag on this nation.
When you analyse the vote and see how few have been elected on majority votes it will be realized definitely that there is no mandate. In April, 1963, the Liberal party got 41 per cent of the national vote. The Conservative party got 33 per cent, the Social Credit party 12 per cent and the New Democratic party 14 per cent of the total national vote. That does not look like any mandate to anybody on the question of a national flag. A mandate is defined as a

clear instruction, authorization or direction. How anyone can call a 41 per cent vote a clear instruction and authorization or direction is beyond my comprehension, particularly when there are scores of seats where the question of a flag was never even raised. But in August of this year, as I said in the course of some previous remarks, we were advised that the flag question had all been settled. The country had decided, and the three maple leaf flag was "it". A member of the cabinet was speaking in British Columbia when he made that flatfooted statement in August. That was the three leaf flag. In November, the same cabinet minister, speaking in the maritimes, said that 90 per cent of the country was in favour of the one leaf design. That was only three months later. What loyalty is there to suggested national emblems when you see people switching from the red ensign to a three leaf flag in August and to a one leaf flag in November? There is no loyalty there.
When it comes to the subject of closure and a free vote, three times in this house within the past two weeks we have had the opportunity of adjourning the debate to enable us to get off the flag question and proceed to some necessary government business. On all three occasions I voted for the adjournment of the debate. You know how the others voted in this house, Mr. Speaker. That was a free vote of course. Always voting the same way, but a free vote. Now, when closure is introduced we have a free vote. And notice how the vote went. It was again a free vote, of course. There was no control in that regard. I want to emphasize the fact that it was a free vote.
The statement was made in this house on Friday that although this is a minority government it is not a minority parliament. That is a very fine, mouth-filling phrase. But what are the facts of the matter? We are not a minority parliament, it has been said. I propose to give some figures which have taken me some time to analyse. I have had mathematical specialists undertaking this analysis for me. I would point out that the 129 Liberal members of this house did not receive a majority of the votes of the electorate in the ridings which sent them here. These figures have been compiled so as to include all byelections held from April, 1963 up to and including Waterloo South and Westmorland. To continue, 129 Liberal members have 2,060,000 votes behind them. The same members have 2,082,000 votes against them. The Social Credit party has nine members in this
Canadian Flag
house who were elected on the basis of 120,000 favourable votes with 166,000 votes against them. The nine Social Credit members gathered 41.9 per cent of the votes cast in their constituencies. The 18 members of the New Democratic party are here with 251,001 votes behind them and 356,879 votes against them. The 18 members of the N.D.P. in this house collected 41.2 per cent of the votes of the constituencies who sent them here. The Ralliement Creditiste, with 13 members, have 147,936 votes behind them and 168,725 votes against them. They gathered 46.7 per cent of the votes in the 13 constituencies which sent them here. I would point out that the Liberals, the Social Credit party and the Creditistes from which the closure votes came are a minority in their own constituencies, let alone a minority in the house. I have mentioned this point before and I can only mention it once again. I do not see how anyone can conscientiously support the application of closure when this government does not have a majority behind it. I am in favour of closure and it should be on the statute books; but it should only be used by a government which has an absolute control of the house and an absolute control over the constituencies for which its members sit. That is only fair and proper. When you have a majority government representing the majority of the voters, then it should have a free hand to impose objectives which it has stated to be its political intentions. But when you have a government which is only here, you might say, on sufferance without a majority vote behind them, closure should not be applied because it means that a minority of the voters in the country are applying closure to a majority of the voters in the country, which is the denigration of democracy.
I have been reading the remarks which were made in this house on Thursday and Friday last. I was absent from the house on Thursday last because I was sitting in the police court in Cooksville with the 12 taxicab operators whom the Department of Transport is persecuting-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I mean prosecuting-in connection with having picked up taxicab fares at Malton airport despite a ten year contract which the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) gave when he was minister to Air Terminal Transport without tender. We sincerely hope to get this matter on a legal and proper basis where there will be tenders for that government contract requested, and we

Canadian Flag
hope that this ten year deal can be broken. That deal is for a longer period of time than the normal span of two complete parliaments. However, we are making progress on that. We had a good time on Thursday in front of Magistrate Andrews.
Then last Friday I was out of the house and I was paired with the seconder of this motion on the flag. I could not have had a better pair, unless it had been the chairman of the committee himself, and I thank the seconder for the pair. While I was out of the house a certain statement was made. The criticism was offered that, "as a result of some kind of deal with one part of Canada, with Quebec, and that somehow this is Quebec's flag. Mr. Speaker, nothing, could be more malevolently designed to stir up division and controversy in this country. It is untrue and it is unworthy". I regret that that matter was ever brought forward and I am glad I am not the one who brought it forward.
In this regard may I refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Lamontagne), our Secretary of State, on June 13 in Toronto, which is reported in the Toronto Daily Star. The Secretary of State made this statement to the press:
The M.P. for Outremont-St. Jean conceded the new flag would be more widely accepted in Quebec than in the rest of Canada.
I wonder why, Mr. Speaker, it would be more widely accepted in Quebec than in the rest of Canada if it is not particularly desired in the province of Quebec?
Then we are told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), as reported on page 11038 of Hansard for Friday last:
If, Mr. Speaker, the absence from our national flag of symbols which to a large part of our people seem to represent early differences.. .is the absence of those earlier symbols from a Canadian flag too much of a sacrifice for the rest of us to make in the interests of unity in this country.
Who is being asked, Mr. Speaker, to make these sacrifices, and what are they being given in return? Why must one element of the community everlastingly be asked to make sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice in the interests of unity?
Now, Mr. Speaker, analysing the vote which took place in this house on Thursday I find that there were 45 Liberal members from Quebec who voted against holding a plebiscite. It is quite interesting to note that those 45 Quebec Liberals who voted against holding a plebiscite captured 822,230 votes in the April 1963 election, with 654,666 votes be-

ing cast against them. Where is the mandate there? Twelve of the Creditistes voted against the referendum. Those 12 Creditistes from the province of Quebec captured 133,235 votes, with 158,565 against. Five of the Social Credit members from Quebec voted against the referendum. They held 76,227 votes, with 87,600 votes cast against them. There were 99,489 votes for those seven Social Credit members of parliament when they were elected, and 118,367 votes were cast against them. With regard to the 12 members of the New Democratic party who voted against the plebiscite, there were 154,334 votes behind them and 219,089 votes against them. I give you those figures, Mr. Speaker, to show that a majority of the voters is not behind these people who have voted against holding a plebiscite.
The next question which comes up-


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


Ralph Bronson Cowan: -is this: Why was this question raised in the first place? There was no need to bring it up.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have mentioned before, and I repeat, that on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen for March 13, 1963 there is a headline with reference to the then leader of the opposition who was running for parliament. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was right when he said that statements made when running for parliament do not have to be put into effect once you are elected. But on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen four weeks before the election we read the headline "Pearson doesn't reject red ensign as our flag". Then follows a report by Southam News Services datelined Sherbrooke:
Liberal leader Pearson said today he had "never rejected the red ensign as Canada's flag and do not do so now".
Commenting on reports out of Winnipeg last week that he wanted to see something other than the red ensign as Canada's national flag Mr. Pearson said that he merely wanted a distinctive Canadian flag...
To reject the red ensign would mean the rejection of a British symbol, the union jack, which means much to so many people who have served and fought under it, and this he did not advocate.
That statement was made, as I say, within four weeks of the election. That statement has never been denied, and there are men sitting in the press gallery who were in

Sherbrooke, Quebec when that statement was issued to them. We cannot call them as witnesses from the press gallery, but I have been talking to them and I can identify them quite readily.
Now, I take it that the word of that speaker was to be trusted. He said on August 5 last, on a C.B.C. television network program:
I say that as one who honours the red ensign-
Therefore he will vote for its retention and not for its disappearance. Then he went on to say:
I hope that parliament will be able to decide this matter with a minimum of bitterness and rancour. I believe that when parliament does decide, the people of Canada will accept the decision of parliament.
If this parliament has a majority of the people behind it when it votes, then it is expressing the will of the people. Why does the leader of the government say:
I believe that when parliament does decide, the people of Canada will accept the decision of parliament.
I want to see a government which represents the decision of the people and the desire of the people when it votes. I do not like to see a parliament deciding something and then "believing" that the people of Canada will accept later the decision of parliament.
If we have to get rid of our old flag because of its historic connections, because it is not distinctively Canadian and not typical of this country, then why do we not get rid of our system of weights and measures? I find pints and quarts and bushels and pecks disturbing. And when it comes to gills and rods and poles and perches and acres and cubic feet, it is really upsetting. This does not belong to Canada. This is an English system, so why not have a purely Canadian system? Why do we bother with the English language?
Why do we speak in the English language? Why do we not get a language of our own? Why do we stick to the use of the French language, it does not belong to us? The French language belongs to France and the English language belongs to England. Let us have a language of our own.
I say, let us stick with the red ensign if we are proud of our history. Surely there is not one member of this house who would not say that the majority of the people of Canada believe as we do. When we vote let us vote in a manner to indicate our support for the retention of the red ensign, within the next two hours.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to follow the hon.
Canadian Flag
member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) who has just made a very eloquent address, in spite of the fact he is a member of the Liberal party. If we read the weekly report to the weekly press by the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Francis) we might be led to believe that the hon. member for York-Humber will be run out of the party if he continues to express himself with that intestinal fortitude, which is not possessed by other members of his party. I congratulate that hon. member and take my hat off to him.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the address of the leader of the N.D.P., the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). The Indian bands in my constituency very often honour individuals by making them members of the band and giving them names which relate to their characteristics.
I am sure if that hon. member were honoured by the tribes of my constituency they would name him "Chief Two-Voice Tommie", because he spoke for us and against us; he combed the Liberals against the grain; he took a crack against the Conservatives hoping to create a vacuum, with the idea that he and his party in the long run would become the benefactors. In the long run I think the people of this country will understand that he is still preaching socialism.
I did not intend to speak during this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: But I intend to speak now, so you need not applaud too hastily. I hesitated to take part in this debate because I felt it was moving in the direction of an Anglo-Franco dialogue, becoming louder as the time passed. It was creating disunity, I admit, but it was started by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who was bound and determined that this flag should be placed foremost on the list of things to be done by this parliament, above important pieces of legislation. It was my feeling that a member who was of neither French nor English origin should act like a good neighbour when a common law husband and wife are fighting, and stay out of it.
I felt like staying out of this debate, but I was prompted to take part by the impressive speech of that sweet young lady, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Konantz). She made a tremendous impression upon me, as I am sure she did on this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Canadian Flag


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: You perhaps will not applaud after you have heard the rest of what I have to say.
That hon. member discussed the history of Canada, told us about Mennonites, Germans, Ukrainians and Icelanders, but she did not tell us under what flag these people came to this country. She very deftly skirted around that fact.
She informed us that she was a member of the committee that studied the flag issue. I know how the Liberal members of that committee voted. The Prime Minister did not make any announcement to the members of his party as to how they should vote, and I do not suggest that the Liberal members were told how to vote. However, they knew what the Prime Minister wanted.
The Prime Minister during his outright speech in this house said, among other things, that there must be just one national flag. We do have another resolution on the order paper and, although I am not allowed to discuss it or even mention it, I should like to know why this debate is a two flag debate.
The Prime Minister also said that he had agreed to a compromise. I agreed with the Prime Minister when he said that the three leaf design was more attractive than this one maple leaf caricature which we now have before us. I agreed with him when he said that the three maple leaf design was a more attractive and beautiful flag than the design chosen by this committee. I support the amendment which, if adopted, would send this issue again to the flag committee.
We should give some consideration to the red ensign under which those people referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South came to this nation. Those people were guaranteed certain freedoms-freedom of speech, freedom of religion-as well as British justice and fair play.


An hon. Member:: They were guaranteed there would be no closure.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: They were guaranteed there would be no closure, yet we certainly have closure in this house.


An hon. Member:: Your time has expired.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: During the 30 days of this debate, which I admit is a rather long period of time, few if any of the members who continually interrupt us have had guts enough to stand up on their feet and ask questions. All we have heard them say is "order, order" and "question, question". When I have completed my speech I will be glad to answer

any questions, but I have the floor at this time.
I am pleased to know that there is one member on that side of the house who has the courage to stand up, but as far as those members who shout "order" and "question" are concerned, I must state that I am ashamed of their attitude and ashamed of this government and those who support it. I think the people of this country should be made aware of the fact that the members on the government side of this house have been glued to their seats, nailed to their seats, pinned to their seats, and by whose orders? They have been pinned to their seats by the orders of a man who, by the actions of some of his ministers, has been forced to send out a code of ethics. That man does not happen to be in the house at this time, but I suggest that if the division bell rings he will be here posthaste to vote for this flag which he suggests is the only one for this nation. He is the man who has said that he has compromised in accepting the one leaf design recommended by the committee rather than the three leaves design. Of course a member of parliament cannot make or take bets on the actions of the House of Commons, but I would bet that if the Creditistes, Social Crediters and members of the N.D.P. had not committed themselves to supporting that man, the right hon. gentleman who leads the Liberal party would not have pushed this flag through. Am I right in that or not?
He knows he has a majority in the house but he does not know whether he has a majority in the country, and the hon. member for York-Humber has said so plainly. I had an over-all majority over my three opponents of over 50 per cent. Yet I do not say I have a mandate. I am expressing my own opinion. I know the feelings of a lot of people. The government has no mandate but a majority has been guaranteed to these people who want to bury the past.
There is another matter I should like to bring up, the question of the founding races. The subject of the founding races is beginning to wear pretty thin. I too have studied Canadian history and I am not a member of either of the founding races. I am one of those who Mr. Rene Levesque says have to become either English or French or-well, I am not going to say the rest. But, Mr. Speaker, out of me and the likes of me and all those mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Konantz) you can make darn good Canadians but you cannot make English or French people out of them

but only good Canadians. The founding races?
It was a marriage of convenience. I would say it was a common law marriage of the conqueror and the conquered. You might as well admit it. You cannot rewrite history, and I have studied Canadian history as much as you people have.
What of the conquerors? Most of them were United Empire Loyalists who came here after the revolution when the United States broke off from England. They wanted to live under the British flag. What did those in Lower Canada want? They were afraid that if they ever joined the United States they would be absorbed as the French have been absorbed in Louisiana, where there is no trace of the French language or culture. I do not know about the religious part of it. So it was a marriage of convenience, a common law marriage and the two parties are fighting today. Who started the fight? Not the English speaking segment of Canada at all, Mr. Speaker. That is the way I see Canadian history.
The hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) said this was the last chance. I believe this will be the last time I will ever speak in favour of the red ensign. It will be the last time I will have the opportunity of doing so, and that applies to all other members.


An hon. Member:: Let us vote.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Oh, yes, I know you have got a guarantee that others will vote with you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You were a Conservative once.


Jay Waldo Monteith: He does not know any better.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You have said you never voted Liberal until you ran as a Liberal, Harry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair would like to hear the interesting historical summary.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, I know there are people in this country and many of the members across the way and to the left of us who will cheer when they pull down the red ensign. It will become a foot wiper in the same way as some have already wiped their feet on it in certain parts of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Yes, that has been proven.


An hon. Member:: That is a stupid thing to say.
Canadian Flag


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: That has been reported and never denied. There will be many foot wipers and some will cheer when the red maple leaf goes up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am going to tell you this, Mr. Speaker. I like to see a man get up and say something instead of yak-yaking and hiding behind somebody else. We have heard that for 30 days. The Liberals have been glued and nailed to their seats. I wonder why? I do not know. I think the man who established the code of ethics for the whole cabinet must have established one for the whole party. That is perfectly all right. That is his business. But, Mr. Speaker, there are going to be many people in this nation who will have heavy hearts. They are going to be sorry to see the ensign come down.


An hon. Member:: You hope.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, if any of these members of the Liberal party want to get up and ask me questions that is fine or if they want to speak after me I will be glad to give them part of my time, but they have not got what it takes.


An hon. Member:: The guts.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: There are many who are going to have heavy hearts. Many are going to be sorry. We are not Africans, Mr. Speaker, and I am not insulting the Africans. I feel that if this parliament in its wisdom or ignorance, shall I say, adopts this flag, and I include the Senate and His Excellency the Governor General, I too will have to salute this flag. But I have one thing about which I am proud, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago the province of Manitoba enacted a provincial statute making the red ensign the provincial flag. I asked the premier of the province what he would do if the federal government relented and accepted the red ensign. He said, "Then we will just repeal our enactment". I do not think Mr. Roblin is happy. He would have been glad to repeal that act. I know where his sympathies lie. I know where Mr. Thatcher's sympathies lie and Mr. Manning's.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Smallwood.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Smallwood too. Many people will look upon the hauling down of the red ensign with heavy hearts. I speak with emotion because emotion is natural for


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


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


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, as we enter the last and dying hour of this debate I consider it a privilege and an honour to participate once more in our discussions as the House of Commons reaches a very historic stage in the establishment of the flag which will be flown in Canada. A few days ago I had the pleasure, as I have this evening, of making a contribution to this debate regarding one of the amendments which was then before the house. At that time I laid before me on my desk four, five or six prominent daily newspapers from across the two main provinces of Canada, and I indicated the importance of their headlines for that day. None of the headlines made any reference to the flag debate which was taking place in the house at the time. There was a sinister warning made on that particular day to me and all Canadians by the reference to those things which are unsatisfactory in our Canadian political life. Those references had a bearing, in my opinion, on the words I used on August 12, the day I first participated in this debate. It is not my intention this evening to be as lengthy as I was on that occasion, but because of the close association of that warning with the words I used at that time, and the close association between the situation as it existed at that time and as it exists tonight, I should like to quote from that speech of August 12, at which time I quoted from a book known
Canadian Flag
as "The Fight for Canada" by W. Wood, with reference to the time Canada was a colony of France. I said:
We find that Vaudreuil was "-a liar, a backbiter, and a pettifogger, utterly unfit for his great position; and the best excuse that can be made for him is that he was almost as great a fool as a knave."
Dealing with Bigot it says:
"He deliberately set to work to create universal destitution in order that he might requisition help from France and make his commission on it."
Is there not a comparison to be found between the situation which existed at that time and the situation which exists today?
The government has chosen a very inopportune time to suggest that it has the right to present a national flag for Canada under existing circumstances. I think this is particularly true when one considers what might have been done during the long summer months, during the months of the fall, and during the months of the winter, to the greater advantage of the people of Canada than a debate such as we have had on a flag issue.
I think also of the situation which has faced the eastern farmers, and what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) has said about that situation. That situation has grown worse at least in the area which I have the honour to represent. The Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) stated that the farmers of eastern Canada were in a very sorry state so far as their economical situation is concerned. Many of my colleagues, as well as myself, have pleaded with the Minister of Agriculture to do something about this situation. What was his answer to this plea? It was simply that if we just keep quiet everything will look after itself. He stated that we were not rendering the farmers of eastern Canada any service by mentioning the situation. I guess this house did not do them any service by fighting this flag battle, because while we were debating the national flag issue the Minister of Agriculture forgot about the growing protest on behalf of the eastern Canadian farmer. Surely this house could have rendered some more beneficial service to the people of Canada than has been rendered them during the course of this debate.
I believe this night is an historic one. We are approaching Christmas, that season hallowed by the Christian world. I believe Canada is a Christian country, and that Christianity is part of our heritage. I believe that Christianity is representative of our way of life and, as I said on August 3, I960, Christianity as brought down to us through English common law also forms a part of the laws

Canadian Flag
of this country and the laws of the United States. I quoted an authority at that time, Mr. Speaker, and that authority is still the one to which I refer in support of my argument today.
The purpose of my brief speech this evening is this. An hon. member who spoke earlier in the course of this debate made a very earnest and passionate appeal, and speaking as to the other side of the question he said that the adoption of the flag now before us for consideration would not have application in Christian heritage. He said the flag would have no application to those things we cherish in our legal structure, or our institutions.
When I returned home last Sunday and, as is my custom, I attended church service with my wife and family, the man who preached the sermon impressed on me very emphatically that the times in which we live are changing. He said that Christianity was not keeping pace with the increase in the population of the world. He said that all churches which regard themselves as Christian churches were tending to adopt Christianity as an easy thing, and treating it just like a club, rather than a religion. He said there was a tendency by this mode of life to remove symbols, such as the cross, from Christianity. He went on to say, as I indicated this evening, that if we remove the cross as a symbol of something which we who call ourselves Christians believe in, we are actually denying our Christian heritage.
Mr. Speaker, I deplore the fact that all Canadians who find themselves in the situation with which we are faced tonight will grieve the denial of our Christian heritage under the flag which is proposed to be flown over Canada. I feel as sincerely about this as anyone who takes a different position.
As I present my point of view to the house tonight, I am not unmindful of the contributions which were made during the world wars, and while my contribution was insignificant, one of my colleagues lies beneath the ground somewhere in Holland. He died as a result of being shot down. That situation is not unlike the situations of several of our colleagues on the other side of this house, and I have particularly in mind a member of the family of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Picker sgill).
With all sincerity I do not think we will ever live down the fact that we are removing something which men who have given their

lives, honoured as part of Canada's Christian and democratic heritage.


Mr. Gerard Ouellel (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, on September 2 I took part in the proceedings of this parliament in order to express my views in the controversial Canadian flag debate.
Let me say first of all that, in my opinion, a distinctive flag is not an extinctive flag. I wonder why Canadians of my province who, in many respects, show so much faithfulness to their origins, have ceased to believe in the mission assigned to them by Providence.
Unfortunately, I fail to understand why, in considering this delicate matter of selecting a flag, they admit so readily that the fleur-de-lis should disappear from our flag, even from our mind, and forever. Perhaps they agree with the remarks made last Thursday night, December 10, by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) who stated this, as reported on page 11023 of Hansard:
X understand the feelings of our friends. They are quite willing to forgo any symbolism of our French heritage in Canada provided they can, at the same time, eliminate all the symbolism of the British heritage in connection with our country from our flag.
On second thought, those words seem to me strictly true. I knew before that the hon. member was living in an aura of wisdom. This reminds me of King Solomon's characteristic touch when he offered two women, who were quarrelling about the possession of a young child to cut the living child in two. The true mother then preferred yielding her child to seeing it die before her eyes. I leave it to each of you to draw his own conclusions from this excerpt of the book of wisdom.
Of course, I am in favour of a Canadian flag, but a single flag, representing, or comprising the symbols of the union jack and the fleur-de-lis, with a green maple leaf.
On this last point, I must say this. The hon. member for Vegreville, Alberta (Mr. Fane), this noble representative of a riding where 40 different nationalities are living together in harmony and who, moreover, has received a third mandate with an absolute majority, insisted upon the inclusion of a green maple leaf. I thank him for this.
Are you aware that a red leaf maple tree does not mean much to a maple sugar producer? I myself am a maple sugar producer,

so I have a knowledge of the facts. The good varieties of sugar and syrup maple trees have green leaves during the spring as well as in summertime; in the fall, the leaves take a yellowish colour, the same as that of ripe wheat, then they fall and return to the soil. The red leaf maple tree may be lovely to look at, but that is all that can be said for it, as far as its practical value is concerned.
In proceeding with my investigation on this point, I noted on page 11038 of Hansard in the left hand column, words that in my opinion, come from a true diplomat- from the Prime Minister's lips-about the maple leaf for our flag, and I quote:
-it has become so deeply a part of our symbolic history. This is especially true when the other symbol of our past, which has appeared on our flags in the past, the union jack, is to be recognized in another way.
There is the core of the problem. I want to dispense with any comment.
Quite often I find I am asking myself questions; it seems I am looking at myself and at everything around me, and I have the feeling that we are at the crossroads.
At this time those nations who yesterday celebrated their independence with glee are plunged into days of agony. They thought that they must at all costs rid themselves of imperialists, Belgian imperialists, Dutch imperialists, French imperialists and British imperialists. Was it a decision based on a common desire to thwart materialism, injustice and hatred in order to follow in the path of love? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.
I think it was a day of victory for facility, for licence, for materialistic forces over moral forces. In that regard, everyone of us has a responsibility, because we are interdependent in this world.
But however, is it necessary to insult our Queen, Her Majesty Elizabeth II, to declare our eagerness to lead the good fight against the abuses of capitalism, against famine, leprosy, nakedness and against corruption in the public service, sure symptoms of our despicable selfishness? No, no, no.
Those who know me are not surprised to hear me give such a testimony in this house today.
In the tradition of my family, I learned that in two different periods, several Ouellets gave their lives serving the king of France, here in Canada in the province of Quebec, and then later under the regime recognized by the Paris treaty, and today I want to be worthy of my ancestors. I recognize that England did make some errors
Canadian Flag
in her colonial policy. I think, however, she did her best for us, French Canadians. In any case, we had not been spoiled by France.
In fact, each of us believes he is invested with undeniable powers, or at least with a fair possession of a political and legislative power.
Mr. Speaker, if our loyalty towards the French Canadians rests on the contempt or persecution of anything that is not French, whether it is toward the members of this house or of the other place, or elsewhere, then we put justice and charity on the rack.
I have always believed that when love and hate meet and face each other, victory goes to love. Our Canadian political history teaches us lessons to remember and, as a member for the county of Rimouski, a county which is inscribed in the golden book of Canadian democracy, here is why.
Indeed, we all learned that one day Sir Georges Etienne Cartier was elected in Manitoba, in the constituency of Provencher, Sir Wilfrid Laurier in Saskatchewan, in the constituency of Prince Albert-they are glorious, the constituents of Prince Albert-and before that, Robert Baldwin was elected by acclamation in Rimouski. These facts are on the record and do honour to us.
At present I am saddened when I see that at the very moment when there is a rift in the structure of the communist bloc, free men are destroying themselves by despising the principles they had cherished until the advent of a contagious materialism.
Before I take my seat, I must say that I believe in the future of Canada-a future resting on a glorious past where men and women with different languages and customs erected a country which history has already recognized as unwilling to die.
I quote from the third paragraph of our national anthem, the following words:
Amour sacre du Trone et de l'Autel,
Remplis nos coeurs de ton souffle im-mortell
All of you, Canadians, let this be your watchword; carry on the fight on behalf of this troubled, patient and harrowed humanity. Noblesse oblige. Let us never forget that we carry a heavy responsibility on our shoulders. Our flag deserves all this attention.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Oh, here he goes again.
11130	HOUSE OF
Canadian Flag


David Réal Caouette: I hear the hon. member lor
Yukon saying:


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Northwest Territories. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: I hear the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, and not the Yukon saying:

It is true I am going again but not on so many occasions as the Conservatives have for the past four or five months.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: You have nothing to say. Mr. Caoueile: Nothing to lose, no.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Nothing to say.


David Réal Caouette: Listening to you, no, nothing to lose.

A few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, we saw the hon. member for Grey-Bruce pose as a martyr.
Naturally, it was to be expected that those poor Conservative members would complain that they were not given the opportunity to express their views freely in this house since the resolution for a distinctive national flag was introduced. Well, the Conservatives-


Eric Alfred Winkler: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, I will.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to ask the hon. member if he would not feel more proud of his citizenship in Canada if he put forth as humble an effort for his country as I have?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on this specific point, I just love to see the Conservatives applaud and, in this regard, I should like to remind them of what Her Majesty the Queen said in Quebec city, during the recent visit, a month and a half ago, and that is that some people's patriotism must not prevent them from understanding the patriotism of others. I have no hesitation in telling the hon. member for Grey-Bruce that I am just as much a Canadian patriot as he is, has been and ever will be.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Not if the statements you
have made are true.


David Réal Caouette: Stand up and ask your question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I say to you, not if the statements you have made are true.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could we have order, please? The hon. member for Villeneuve has the floor.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: You sold lots of cars.


David Réal Caouette: It is all right, I do not need you to sell cars anywhere in Ontario. I am not one to follow politicians that are more interested in their party than their patriotism to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Conservatives speak, in turn, again and again, and surely more often than not.
Last Friday the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) stated in the house that the hon. member for Villeneuve was ready to accept anything as a distinctive national flag, that he was ready to accept symbols of Italy, under Mussolini, that he was even ready to accept wartime Germany's swastika.
Mr. Speaker, from the time the question of a Canadian flag was introduced, I have always maintained in the house that we would vote for a flag which contained nothing else but Canadian symbols. We have never said what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre repeated in the house: that I would be ready to accept anything on a distinctive Canadian flag. No, Mr. Speaker.
We took our stand at the very beginning of the flag debate. We have expressed our opinion, we have even suggested what would be our choice for a distinctive national flag: a flag with the red and white diagonals with a green maple leaf. That was our choice. However, at the same time, we suggested and offered to support whoever in the house would come up with a distinctive national flag, not a flag with the symbols of France or England, but a distinctive flag with Canadian symbols which would be our own and belong to us all, here, in Canada.
It is unfortunate to see how much division the flag debate has created, the gap it has put between the various nationalities in Canada.
We have heard about the French Canadian element, yes. We have heard about the English Canadian elements, very well. But when the Conservatives gave the impression or suggested throughout Canada that the distinc-

tive national flag was only a step to please French Canadians, then the Conservatives did a bad service to the Canadian unity and a very bad service to the understanding between the various groups which make up the Canadian society. We must not forget that there are in Canada Ukrainians, Poles, Italians. There are people of all nationalities in our country.
The Italians, the Ukrainians, the Poles are not interested in the French fleur-de-lis flag or the English union jack flag. But they are interested in a distinctive Canadian national flag, because they are real Canadians, in the same way as those who think as Canadians instead of English, or French, etc.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard all kinds of remarks on the part of the Conservatives and of a Liberal member. At this stage I want to mention that the only group in this house which was unanimous and voted unanimously, on several occasions, in favour of a distinctive national flag was the Ralliement Creditiste group which represents, to put it that way, the truly Canadian element, and not only the French Canadian, as it was suggested.
The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has declared, in this house, that the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste is in the hands of the Liberals with regard to the flag. Two years ago the Liberals said exactly the same thing when the Conservatives banked on the support of the Crddi-tistes to stay in power.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the flag is an issue which transcends political interests, political boundaries, which transcends even political parties as such. It is as Canadians that we support the proposal for a distinctive national flag.
The sixth report was presented to us by the chairman:
That the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday October 29, 1964, be now concurred in.
Mr. Speaker, we think that the time has come to accept a national distinctive flag, even if the sixth report recommends a flag that is not exactly according to our taste and even if its design does not seeem attractive.
We were even told that if the flag has red bars on a white field with a red maple leaf, it was-and this, for the information of the public-in order not to yield to the proposal of a member of the New Democratic party who was suggesting a red maple leaf with blue bars on a white field, which flag
Canadian Flag
would have been more acceptable than the one now before us.
However, we will not stand against the vote on the national distinctive flag recommended to us by the committee.
The Conservatives referred to the fact that in 1945, by order in council, Canada had adopted the red ensign to replace the union jack. It was suggested that the Mackenzie King government had adopted the red ensign as the Canadian flag.
Today the Leader of the Opposition is asking us to add to the red ensign, besides the union jack now in the left upper corner, a fleur-de-lis in the lower part of the flag as a symbol of the heritage we received from our ancestors.
A few days ago I told the Leader of the Opposition, as I tell all Conservatives: We have the greatest respect for our ancestors and our forebears, for our great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers; however,, not one Conservative today would put on the clothes or the shoes of his forebears who lived in 1867 or 1830. Everybody knows that, Mr. Speaker.
We are no longer living in the days of the catacombs of Rome or the beginning of Christendom; we are now at the point where we have to decide by ourselves, in Canada, whether we want to be a sovereign nation, an independent nation, a nation still part of the commonwealth of British nations, but we of the Ralliement Creditiste are not ready to adopt symbols which make us slaves and representatives of a foreign nation.
And I said many times, we are the first to recognize that, under the British laws, we have been able to exteriorize and become what we are today. However, it is time that, even though remaining members of the commonwealth of British nations, we have our own symbols, our aspirations and our will as a people and as members of parliament.
This afternoon, I heard the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) tell us:

French and English speaking people should work together and this arrangement has to work both ways.

Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to that point. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) did the same this afternoon. I suggest that if there is one part of the country where both elements have got along

Canadian Flag
together and understood each other, where the English and French elements have respected each other, it is actually the province of Quebec.
This afternoon the hon. member for Lapointe said that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had been premier of Saskatchewan for 17 years. This is a fact. I know what I am talking about, because I have relatives in south Saskatchewan, around Gravelbourg and Pontex, and I can say that in that province as in the others, separate schools-


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask the hon. member
a question?


David Réal Caouette: Definitely.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Would you volunteer to fight under this flag?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Réal Caouette: Would you repeat your question?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes. Would you volunteer to fight under this flag?


David Réal Caouette: I will volunteer to fight for security and freedom in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to take a lesson in patriotism from any Conservative member in the House of Commons. I am even able to give them one in their own provinces.
When the other provinces of Canada treat their French minority the way we treat English speaking Canadians in the province of Quebec, the Conservatives can then afford to give me a lesson in patriotism.
I come from the Rouyn-Noranda area where there are English speaking people, Ukrainians, Italians, Poles, in short, people of all nationalities. We get along perfectly well.
In Montreal or Quebec city, we get along perfectly well also. Why in the other provinces, because we are French minorities do we have to pay double taxation for the administration of our schools in order to have our rights respected? That is what English Canadians do not understand.
Mr. Speaker, as long as I breathe I shall oppose any infringement upon the rights of the English speaking Canadians. But I shall fight so that no one will infringe upon my rights nor those of the French Canadians across Canada, not only in the province of Quebec.
It is on behalf of this Canada that we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, are prepared

to support the adoption of a distinctive national flag, of a truly Canadian flag, neither French nor English Canadian, but a Canadian flag with Canadian symbols and something which represents Canada throughout the world, including the commonwealth of British nations. Let us be part of that society of nations.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Conservatives find it funny. We also found it funny to remain in the House of Commons for over four months to listen to stupid speeches, separatist speeches worse than those we heard in the province of Quebec.
The separatists are not in the province of Quebec. The separatists are the Conservatives sitting to your left.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You have your point mixed up.


David Réal Caouette: Certainly not. I am on the right track. I have my point right.
If the matter of the flag is not yet settled, the Conservatives are fully aware it is their fault. They have wasted the time of the house for weeks and months. I recently went to Toronto where I met some students.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you go to Manitoba?


David Réal Caouette: For the hon. member's information, I might tell him that I intend to go to Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired. I now have to choose among three hon. members. The last three speakers have been the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) Conservative party, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Ouellet) Conservative party, and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) Creditiste, so now I will choose a Liberal, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order.


An hon. Member:: You are not in your place.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, I move, seconded by my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) be now heard.


Some hon. Members:: Shame. Closure.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Skeena. Had we voted, we both would have abstained.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there have been 270 speeches-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There were 118.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 33, which is the closure rule. The concluding part of that standing order reads as follows:
-and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or

Canadian Flag
concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions-


An hon. Member:: Well, sit down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
In view of that rule, Mr. Speaker, no one is entitled to speak after the hour of one o'clock, and it is now-


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -20 minutes after one.
The hon. members who are shouting "closure" are members of the Liberal party which imposed this restriction on the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is perfectly obvious from reading Beauchesne, who repeats this rule, that no member shall rise to speak after one o'clock. Therefore, under the circumstances I suggest that the debate has come to a conclusion, and that you should now put the motion which remains before the house to be considered, namely for concurrence in the sixth report of the committee. That is the only matter of business now before us.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I should like to draw your attention to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 167 (2) which states:
If a member has taken the floor at 12.55 o'clock, he is entitled to speak for twenty minutes, but no member "shall rise to speak" after one o'clock.
It is my belief that the Prime Minister had risen in his place to speak before 12.55 o'clock, and the rule does not state that the 20 minutes shall be concluded by 15 minutes after one o'clock. The rule simply states that a member is entitled to speak for 20 minutes. The Prime Minister has not yet spoken for 20 minutes, and regardless of what the clock says, I contend that because he was on his feet and recognized before 12.55 he has the right to speak for 20 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in reference to citation 167 (2) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, it states in part:
If a member has taken the floor at 12.55 o'clock-
If we accept the argument of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, we must then take into consideration the fact that two members had

taken the floor at the same time, one being the Prime Minister and the other the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They had both taken the floor to speak. May I suggest on that ground that the question now be put. When my friends talk about closure, they established the rule-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question before the Chair is both interesting and rather pressing.


An hon. Member:: Take it under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not propose to take it under consideration because I do not have too much difficulty in reaching a conclusion. I trust that the conclusion is right, impartial and correct. As the Chair sees the situation, the hon. member for Villeneuve, according to the note handed to me from the table, commenced at 12.31 a.m. and his time expired at 12.51 a.m., which is nine minutes to-one. Right after that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Port Arthur rose to speak at 12.51 a.m., which is nine minutes to one or if it was not nine minutes to one it was eight minutes to one.
Objection was raised by the hon. member for Bow River who proposed a motion that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition be now heard. We have had a vote on that motion. Therefore I now have before me an order of the house directing the Chair, according to my view, that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition be not now heard but that the right hon. Prime Minister be now heard. I must have regard to the effect and terms of citation 167, paragraph 2, of Beauchesne which is in these words:
If a member has taken the floor at 12.55 o'clock, he is entitled to speak for 20 minutes, but no member "shall rise to speak" after one o'clock.
The way I interpret this citation and the rules as I understand them is that the Prime Minister, who was on his feet eight or nine minutes before one o'clock and was recognized by the Chair, is entitled to speak at this time but not longer than 20 minutes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there was a famous incident on June 1, 1956, when an attempt was made to turn back the clock

with disastrous results to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggest that the clock is being turned back again and I appeal your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the rules of the house as given to the Chair this session there is no appeal from that decision. The right hon. the Prime Minister.
If I may have the indulgence of the house, I made a misstatement. There can be an appeal from my ruling but there can be no discussion of it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Bring in your furniture, too.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and the Leader of the Opposition was closed off, in addition to the motion for closure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if I may begin my 20 minutes, from which the hon. member for Bow River sought to deprive me, I should like to begin by calling attention to the fact that this debate which is now coming to an end has seen 270, plus, speeches in the house-


An hon. Member:: How many on your side?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -190, plus, of which have come from the official opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: And we successfully
changed the thinking of the government on the first flag.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have been criticized in the house for not having spoken enough in the flag debate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You finally were flushed out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if my hon. friend could contain himself for about 20 minutes. He should consult the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) who makes a tally of all interruptions that take place in debates in this chamber.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And they have been numerous on your side.


Lester Bowles Pearson: His record is going to be very high unless he is careful tonight. However, Mr. Speaker, when I rose to conclude the debate as Prime Minister the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), who has had
Canadian Flag
a good deal to say about closure, rose in his place, as was his right, to prevent me from closing the debate. I have 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker, and if the house wishes to give unanimous consent I would be very glad indeed to take only half of that time and give the last 10 minutes to the Leader of the Opposition if he would like to have them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when the Greeks produce gifts we recognize what they mean. The Prime Minister is trying to explain away a situation in which he is throttling parliament and is tearing down the flag which has flown over this country for 100 years. He is trying to be facetious at a time like this.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to be courteous and co-operative and give half of my time to the Leader of the Opposition. I was offering to give him the last 10 minutes in this flag debate which began last June. Perhaps I should have learned from experience that offers of co-operation of that kind to that quarter usually do not get a very friendly reception.
This debate has gone on for a long time, Mr. Speaker, and in order to preserve to parliament the right of decision it was necessary for the government to invoke a rule which I hope will only be very rarely invoked in this parliament, the rule of closure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Otherwise we would have made a farce of parliamentary debate on this matter and the minority, the opposition, would have had the right to prevent a decision on a matter of the greatest possible national importance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: We accepted our responsibility.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Miller Bell: How could we prevent this decision, Mr. Prime Minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: By the action you are taking now, by intervening to prevent discussion. The motion of the government was sustained, Mr. Speaker, by representatives of every

Canadian Flag
party In the house, including the deputy leader of the Conservative party.
Then, Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. gentleman talks about 1956 and closure, and when he realizes his deskmate, the deputy leader of his own party, voted for closure, how is he going to reconcile that? A decision was taken, and then we continued the debate. We have had a vote this evening on an amendment to the motion to concur in the report of the committee, which would have sent the report back to the committee with instructions to have the red ensign as the flag.


Jay Waldo Monteith: All you want to do is to crucify it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have too much respect for my hon. friend to pay very much attention to that interjection.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have a lot of respect for you, too, but not when you talk that way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the vote this afternoon on the red ensign, a straightforward vote for the retention of the red ensign, the result, I believe, was 162 to 80, or two to one against that motion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the end of a long, hard and sincere fight by hon. members opposite for what they considered to be the right national flag for Canada. I have never denied them that right, nor have I ever denied them the sincerity with which they made the fight.


An hon. Member:: You denied the people that fight.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I denied the people no right. The people are represented in this parliament, and 162 of the representatives of the people in this parliament, representing every party, voted against my right hon. friend and his supporters. All right, Mr. Speaker, that fight in this parliament is over.


An hon. Member:: That's what you think.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This fight is over in this House of Commons. Now, Mr. Speaker, we approach the main motion and the main motion is a report of a committee, representing all parties in this house, a report containing a recommendation which was concurred in by the members of all parties in this house, recommending to this house a red maple leaf flag as the emblem of Canada. This is the flag for the future, but it does not dishonour the past. I hope that Canada can go forward as a united, strong and progressive country, with this flag as its emblem.


John George Diefenbaker: The right hon. gentleman has done everything to divide the country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the right hon. gentleman contain himself for two or three minutes longer, and then we will vote.


John George Diefenbaker: When the right hon. gentleman starts giving me advice, I say to him, you have done more to divide Canada than any other prime minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think we should be sympathetic to the right hon. gentleman because he is feeling the frustrations of failure.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order, sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: I challenge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss La-Marsh) because she was the one who said, with exquisite femininity, "Shut up and sit down". I say to the Prime Minister, is he experiencing the happiness of having throttled discussion in parliament? Is that what he is experiencing at this time when a flag is being born?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before I was interrupted by the right hon. gentleman, that master of parliamentary procedure, I was trying to say that this is a good flag, and it is Canada's flag, an emblem of which we and our children can be proud and under which Canada can go forward, the red maple leaf flag. Surely, Mr. Speaker, when the dust of controversy clears away, when the bitterness of debate is over, we can all in this house rally around the red maple leaf Canadian flag. I know the atmosphere does not appear very propitious across the chamber for appeals, but I make an appeal even at this late date in the debate. I appeal for us all to forget divisions and differences of this debate and to rally behind this red maple leaf Canadian flag.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the Prime
Minister a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: He is telling us of the wonders of the red maple leaf flag. When did he change his mind, after saying the three maple leaf flag represented our heritage, and the one maple leaf had none?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a very easy question to answer. We submitted this matter, at the request of the right hon. gentleman, to a committee representing all parties in this house. This committee did not

see fit, by a majority vote, to accept the design I preferred. I accept the design recommended by the committee, and I ask my right hon. friend to do the same thing. Surely there is nothing disgraceful, Mr. Speaker, and nothing could be further from disgrace, than to accept as the emblem of our country a flag which has one red maple leaf on a white background representing what we have stood for in this country in war and peace. Why cannot my right hon. friend forget the passions, the prejudices and the bitterness of the fights of the past few months and rally around this Canadian flag and make it the emblem of unity in this country? Why can he not do this? I ask him to do what we would have done, if the amendment had been carried.


John George Diefenbaker: A flag by closure; imposed by closure.


An hon. Member:: The great divider of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All right, Mr. Speaker, there is no use making an appeal, that is obvious. I regret very much that a man who has attained such prominence in the public life of Canada for so many years would take this attitude at the end of this debate on a matter of this national importance.
I will make one final suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and that is that if this motion carries-and it is going to carry, that is clear, from the vote this afternoon; there is every likelihood of this motion carrying-surely hon. gentlemen opposite do not wish to be put on record as voting against a design which is going to be our national flag.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh, nuts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I ask them, Mr. Speaker, that when you put this motion no hon. member in this house vote against the design which is going to be our flag. Mr. Speaker, I do not ask them to vote for it. I ask that there be no recorded vote so that we will not be in a position in this house of having hon. members vote against what will be our national flag.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Don't be crazy; I am going to be recorded.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I make this appeal to them. They can turn it down with insult and contumely if they so desire. On this side of the house there are Canadians as loyal to the past as any hon. gentlemen opposite, and they will vote for this flag.
Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are Canadians on this side of the house quite as loyal to our past and quite as hopeful of our future.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I consider the remarks of the right hon. gentleman an insult to members on this side of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All right, Mr. Speaker. We on this side have made the appeal. They have turned it down with jeering and insult. We on this side, and a good many on the other side of the house will vote with pride and confidence in the motion you are now about to put before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the resolution
adopted at this sitting-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am rising on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I speak on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, or will I be denied my rights in this house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows perfectly well he will never be denied by this occupant of the chair any rights to which he is entitled. He should know that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was asking to speak on a question of privilege and I was not being given the opportunity. My question of privilege is this: The Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Pearson) has said that we have turned down his proposed flag with jeers and insults. That is not true and I ask him to withdraw that remark. This is an insult to all members of the house. I did not say one word-I uttered no jeer, no insult-and I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that remark, which is an infringement of the privileges of all hon. members of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall leave it to you to judge whether my remarks have been greeted by certain hon. members on the other side with jeers and insults.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not by certain members: By all members.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Pursuant to the resolution adopted at this sitting, and in accordance with the provisions of standing order 33, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forth-

Division
with all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude this debate.
Accordingly, the question is as follows: Mr. Batten, seconded by Mr. Scott, moved:
That the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag, presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? Those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang O Canada and God Save the Queen.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 2.15 of the morning, this house stands adjourned until 2.30 today.
At 2.15 a.m., Tuesday, December 15, the house adjourned, without question put.
Ormiston	Stefanson
Pascoe	Stenson
Patterson	Thomas
Pugh	Wadds, Mrs.
Rapp	Watson (Assiniboia)
Rheaume	Webb
Rynard	Weichel
Simpson	Willoughby
Smith	Winkler
Southam	Woolliams-78.
Starr	

Tuesday, December 15, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.



PRIVILEGE


David Walter Groos: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday when the final vote was taken I was paired, but I was unable to advise the house of my pair because of events which took place when you declared the motion carried. Had I been able to do so, I would have voted in favour of the motion.



CANADIAN COMMONWEALTH FLAG


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Batten, seconded by Mr. Cantin, moves that the seventh and final report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964 be now concurred in.


Robert Norman Thompson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was there not an understanding last Thursday when the Prime Minister assured the house that between the two debates we would revert to the normal procedure and proceed with orders of the day? Is this not what the agreement was, and does it not still stand?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could deal with the point raised. On Thursday last, in answer to a question from the leader of the official opposition, the Prime Minister stated something about provision for a question period between the two debates. He pointed out that he had already made a proposal to that effect and hoped we could get unanimous agreement to provide for a question period between the two debates.
In accordance with that statement I called a meeting of the house leaders for Friday last. Unfortunately one of the house leaders was not able to come to that meeting, so there was no agreement on that day. This morning I sought to get agreement but have been unable to get agreement for a question period, and that is where the matter stands.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if, in the present circumstances, the government house leader or the Prime Minister would care to ask for the unanimous consent of the house so we could have a question period before proceeding to concur in the seventh and final special flag committee report.
I feel that in acting this way the government would show itself quite willing to cooperate. Besides, that would further the business of the house and make it easier for hon. members who have questions to ask today.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I hope the house leader would now be prepared to ask for unanimous consent of the house for a question period, even though it may be limited to something like 60 minutes. Then we could carry on the regular, routine proceedings, and perhaps if the government wished to go forward with concurrence in this seventh report it would not be well for the house to pass that stage of our routine proceedings at which motions are called. Perhaps unanimous consent could be requested to take questions now, and if it were not forthcoming there would be nothing he could do about it. However, the government would not then be in a position where they could not revert to motions without unanimous consent.


George James McIlraith: The government is quite agreeable, and if there is unanimous consent in the house we should like also to have a formal decision to transfer the two notices of motion on the order paper to government orders so that when we do come to them later on they would be in a position where they could be dealt with. The same situation would apply to the first reading of Senate Bill No. S-22. The government is quite agreeable, and I would make the request now for unanimous consent to proceed to a question period of, say, one hour.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


George James McIlraith: And I would request that we take the two motions under government notices of motions and the first reading of the Senate bill.

Canadian Flag
Mi. Fisher: May I ask the minister, is he agreeable to doing this every day that we are faced with this situation, so we can be assured of a regular question period?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the government house leader has been rather anxious to get some kind of order to the business with a view to reaching what I am sure we all wish, some certainty as to the time of a recess. If we can get this one question period agreed to, I would like to call a meeting of the house leaders and see what arrangement can be made.


Mr. Howard:: Don't you think it would be better to put the flag in cold storage?


Mr. Speaker:: I would appreciate it if the house leader would recapitulate exactly what he wishes.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent for the first reading of the Senate public bill, the calling of the two government notices of motions and then a one hour question period, after which we would revert to the motion that is before the house now, the motion for concurrence in the seventh report of the flag committee. I would also ask that the introduction of bills be called.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the unanimous consent of the house that we proceed in this manner?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Speaker, the seventh and final report of the special committee on the Canadian flag, presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, recommended:
-that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that the royal union flag, generally known as the union jack, may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth of nations and of her allegiance to the crown.
I move, seconded by Mr. Bechard, the hon. member for Bonaventure, that this report be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton speaks I wish to clear up one slight error. When I put this motion I said it would be seconded by Mr. Cantin. The seconder, as proposed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's is Mr. Bechard.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, the motion for concurrence in
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
the seventh report of the special committee on the flag question is something which I feel deserves and should have more than just ordinary attention by all hon. members of the house.
The fact that we have two reports of the committee before us is something which I think requires explanation. I think we have to acknowledge that it is a bit unusual for a committee to present two reports, and it seems to me it is altogether fitting and proper that the house be made aware of the reasons that were advanced in the committee for doing so.
I would advise the house that my purpose in rising today is not merely to make some brief remarks; it is to move an amendment to the motion for concurrence.
It seems to me the first thing we might consider is the paragraph which makes reference to the recommendation for a national flag for Canada. This matter was dealt with yesterday in somewhat unusual circumstances, as I said. I should like to draw attention to the fact that in reaching a decision on the recommendation for a national flag for Canada, one of the first questions to be discussed in the committee was whether we should have one flag or two flags in this country.
The decision of the committee was that we should have only one flag. Those were the words: "only one flag". I suggest that if I were so inclined I might even question the validity of the committee's report itself in view of the fact that this contradiction exists. The committee agreed unanimously in considering this question of a national flag for Canada that there should be only one flag.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hugh John Flemming: I suggest to those gentlemen who are shouting "no" that they read the committee's report, the report with which we dealt yesterday. They will find that "only one" is the expression used.


An hon. Member:: Not so.


Hugh John Flemming: All
right. If the hon. member wishes to speak he will have his chance to do so when I am through. In the meantime I have the floor.
I submit that the committee agreed unanimously that we should have only one flag, only one national flag in this country. Those were the words used. Now we find ourselves considering another flag. I submit this is a negation of the motion itself for only one national flag and, as I say, I think the validity of the whole report might be questioned if I

were so inclined. However, I do not wish to press this point at the moment.
I should like to ask one question, though, and I should like to have this explained to my satisfaction because it was never explained to my satisfaction in the committee. It is, why do we in this country need two flags? We has not had two flags since the Canadian red ensign was the official flag of Canada, proclaimed by order in council in 1945. For many years prior to that date we got along and prospered very well under one flag. Why do we suddenly need two flags in this country?
I for one do not accept the proposition that we should have a first and a second flag. As far as I am concerned, whatever flags we have will be of equal merit and entitled to the same respect. I do not think we should have two flags, one superior to the other, any more than we should have two classes of citizens. We do not want first class and second class citizens in this country; we do not have them now. I do not differentiate, when flags are concerned, as to their status. If it is the considered opinion of this house that the report of the committee should be accepted, then I submit these flags must be of equal status. They must be of equal importance and equal significance even though the message which it is alleged they convey may be somewhat different. In this connection we might consider the message which this particular flag is intended to convey.
However, Mr. Speaker, before doing so I want to refer to the fact that, as I said previously, the flag which we have been using and which is still in use in this country has seemingly been able to transmit its message without help from any other flag. Therefore I think we might consider that the very fact we are being asked to have two flags in this country must suggest the general idea that something is now lacking in the design recommended by the committee in their report and apparently approved by this house yesterday. If I am correct in my opinion in this regard I would like someone to tell me what has brought about the necessity of having a second flag. It should not be the case, and I for one do not appreciate it and certainly do not desire it.
Let us consider the point raised in paragraph 3 of the committee's report. I have already mentioned that in paragraph 2 the flag recommended by the committee is intended to convey a message. This is the message. It is that it will be a flag to symbolize Canada's membership in the com-
Canadian Flag
monwealth of nations and her allegiance to the crown. That is the general message which the flag recommended in this report is intended to convey.
I suggest that membership in the commonwealth is not conveyed by any particular flag. The commonwealth has no flag as such. Commonwealth countries, however, generally speaking-this does not apply sweepingly across the board but it does apply in many instances-have inserted the union jack as part of their flags. However, generally speaking we find there is no such thing as a commonwealth flag. This flag is going to symbolize our membership in the commonwealth, according to this paragraph, and it will also symbolize our allegiance to the crown. I would like to think that the flag which flies over the tower of this building symbolizes our allegiance to the crown also.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that a flag and the things a flag symbolizes are more than just words which are put down on a piece of paper; it symbolizes what is in the hearts and minds of the people who are displaying and flying it. For that reason, if for none other, I believe it is proper for me to say that something must be lacking in the national flag which has already been approved and which is referred to in paragraph 2 of this report.
I said a moment ago that I was not able to understand the substitution. There are quite a few other things I am not able to understand, either. In order to make my point clear I must of necessity read paragraph No. 3 of the report:
It was moved-
That is in the committee:
-"That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that the Canadian red ensign may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth of nations and of her allegiance to the crown".
The amendment which was moved was: ti An amendment was moved to substitute the words "royal union flag, generally known as the union jack" for the words "Canadian red ensign".
In other words, the recommendation of the committee as it now stands presented to this house is:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that the royal union flag, generally known as the union jack, may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth of nations and of her allegiance to the crown".

Canadian Flag
I draw your attention particularly to the words "may continue to be flown", and submit that the union jack has not been flown in Canada generally since 1945. The inclusion of that sentence which says, in effect, that something may continue to be flown which has not been flown for more than 20 years, is nothing more than an expression of ridiculousness. How are we going to continue to fly something that has not been flown continuously?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh John Flemming: Hon.
members opposite who wish to add something to this debate will have an opportunity to do so, and I suggest it will be novel if they add anything intelligent to this debate.
We continue to take the position, as expressed last night, that it is difficult or impossible to continue to fly something as an indication of our membership in the commonwealth of nations and our allegiance to the crown that has not been flown during the past 20 years. Perhaps someone with more comprehension of this situation than I have could enlighten me. I cannot understand how that could take place.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest there is an answer to this problem, and that answer lies in the understanding that a mistake has been made in the committee report. Someone might well suggest that I should explain how a mistake could have occurred. The answer to that question is that we tried to do something about the error but we were not able to obtain enough votes in the committee to accomplish this correction. We did attempt to correct the mistake but were unable to do so, and I suggest that is what I am attempting to correct now by the amendment which I propose to move.
In reference to the next paragraph of the report, a question might be asked as to why there were abstentions. It might properly be asked why we did not vote for or against this matter when it was brought before the committee. My answer to that question is that the amendment which was proposed was an amendment substituting the union jack for the Canadian red ensign, so the question was "Do you prefer the union jack to the Canadian red ensign?" The question was not one really involving a preference but a matter of voting yes or no to the question as to whether there should be a substitution of the union jack for the red ensign. Speaking for myself, I was in favour of the retention of the Canadian red ensign, but did not feel free to vote against
[Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton) .1
the union jack. My action in this regard may well be interpreted by some as sentimentalism. I acknowledge that to be the situation, but I suggest that is the reason for the abstention. I hope to correct the situation by moving my proposed amendment, and I hope this amendment will be acceptable to this house.
I yield to no one in this chamber in my feeling of respect and sentiment for the traditions of this country. However, I do not believe that the union jack is a flag of Canada; it is a flag of the United Kingdom. The red ensign, which incorporates a union jack, has been and I think still is the national flag of Canada and should always be considered as such.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the point at issue, but I doubt whether the majority of the people of this country could be convinced that the flag of the United Kingdom, the union jack, should be flown in Canada as a Canadian flag. Can anyone visualize someone landing on the shores of Nova Scotia, after a shipwreck, wanting to know where he was and seeing the union jack being flown? That individual would perhaps believe that he was still in England, not knowing that the union jack was a flag representing different countries.


An hon. Member:: What about the Nova Scotia flag? Stanfield would not like that.


Hugh John Flemming: I am
one of the first to acknowledge that the flag of Nova Scotia is a very beautiful flag, and I personally thought it was entitled to a great deal more consideration as a national flag than it received.
I suggest with great respect, Mr. Speaker, to the members of this house, and particularly to my colleagues on the special committee, that the substitution of the union jack for the red ensign in this report of the committee is unacceptable. Since there is a flag mentioned in this report, I think it should now be changed from the union jack to the red ensign. In order to bring this proposition before this house-and I hope the house will receive this suggestion with a reasonable degree of consideration-I propose the following amendment: seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh):
That the seventh report of the special committee be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to strike out in the recommendation the words "the royal union flag generally known as the union jack", and substitute therefor the words "the Canadian red ensign".
And that the committee for such purposes be revived.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to state my position on this seventh and final report of the committee in a very few words. We support the seventh report, as we supported the sixth report. I should like to express my appreciation for the work of the committee in producing the seventh report, as I did for their work in producing the earlier report.
This report, which I have before me, indicates that a motion was moved in the committee that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that the Canadian red ensign may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth of nations and of her allegiance to the crown. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the amendment we now have before the house was before the committee during its sessions, but before that particular motion could be voted on in the committee an amendment was moved to substitute the words "royal union flag, generally known as the union jack" for the words "Canadian red ensign". That amendment was carried by a vote of seven for, two against and five abstentions. The motion as amended was then voted on and carried by a vote of eight for, one voting against and five abstentions.
I do not know whether I am doing my hon. friend who has just spoken any injustice, but I assume that he had the opportunity to vote against the royal union flag for the purposes of this motion and in favour of the Canadian red ensign, and he did not vote that way. He abstained. Now he moves in the house, Mr. Speaker, that the red ensign be substituted for the royal union flag, and no doubt he will take a position in the house on this matter that he did not take in the committee. He asks that the matter be referred back to the committee so he can now take a different position in the committee.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I thought that the committee met in camera.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the position of our party in regard to this matter is well known and has been laid down in two election campaigns. In 1962 we stated as part of our policy that the union jack would be flown on appropriate occasions as a symbol of our membership in the commonwealth, and a similar pledge and similar commitment were made in the election of 1963.
My hon. friend who has just spoken began by talking about the illogicality of having two flags in this country; how absurd it was to have two flags even though one flag would
Canadian Flag
be the national flag and the other would be a flag symbolizing our association in the commonwealth. He did not see any reason for that at all. But then he ended up by moving an amendment which would bring about that very thing. If it is illogical to have the royal union flag as a second flag symbolizing our association in the commonwealth, surely it is even more illogical to have the Canadian red ensign, which by order in council in 1945 was made the Canadian flag until parliament decided otherwise. Surely it is even more illogical to make a Canadian flag the second flag symbolizing our association in the commonwealth.
Then indeed, Mr. Speaker, we would have two national flags. Presumably this is what my hon. friend desires, two national flags, because that is what his amendment would do. It would accept the national flag of distinctive design which we decided on last night, and another national flag of Canadian design; and we would indeed then accomplish the result which he has considered as abhorrent to logicality, two flags of any kind in this country.


Hugh John Flemming: May I
ask the Prime Minister a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Hugh John Flemming: I hesitate to interrupt, but is this not exactly what was contemplated by the two resolutions put on the order paper by the government last May in the Prime Minister's name? May I further say that every remark I made was based on the premise that the government had decided to have two flags.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I congratulate my hon. friend on now having reached the view that we ought to have two flags because the government has decided that is the best thing.


An hon. Member:: Don't twist words.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister does not want to misquote me. I said "if the government had decided they should have two flags". I did not say that I favoured two flags.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not want to do any injustice to my friend's reasoning, but if my hon. friend feels that way why did he not move an amendment rejecting the report of the committee? Surely that would have been the most logical course for him to follow, because he admits he does not believe in two flags. That was a problem that was submitted to the committee and they had to deal

Canadian Flag
with it because it was in their terms of reference, but the logical way for him to get out of that dilemma is to object to this report and do away with the second report completely. He does not do that. He says "Let us have a second flag and make it a Canadian flag because it is the Canadian flag today." Yet it is to symbolize our allegiance to the Queen and our association in the commonwealth.
I do not consider that a very reasonable position to take. My hon. friend in supporting it said how absurd it would be to have the royal union flag as a second flag because we should not have two flags in this country, especially a second flag which had not been officially in use for 20 years, I think he said.


Hugh John Flemming: Since 1945.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Since 1945. When the order in council was passed in 1945 authorizing the use officially of the Canadian red ensign until parliament should make a choice of a distinctive flag, the union jack was flown with the red ensign, in accordance with the wishes of the localities concerned, over many buildings for at least two years thereafter.
Surely my hon. friend must know what the situation has been. I ask him what flag has been flying in recent years over the parliament buildings in Fredericton. It is this flag, which is no longer in use and has not been in use for 20 years. I ask him what flag flies over the parliament buildings in Halifax. The union jack along with the flag of Nova Scotia. I ask him what flag flies over the parliament buildings in Prince Edward Island. Until a few weeks ago it was the union jack, but because it is fashionable now to have provincial flags Prince Edward Island adopted a flag of its own and I believe both flags fly there now. The union jack is also flying in Ontario. You will see it flying over school buildings in Ontario with provincial sanction.


Hugh John Flemming: May I
ask the Prime Minister another question? Does the Prime Minister not consider that the very fact that the Canadian red ensign was made official by order in council in 1945 places that flag in an altogether different position from a flag which any provincial government may wish to fly over its own public buildings? I claim it puts the stamp of officialdom on that flag which has been there ever since 1945.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that is quite right. That order in council undoubtedly did put the stamp of officialdom on the Canadian red

ensign until parliament made another choice. There is no doubt about that. But some of the provinces refused to accept that stamp of officialdom. They refused to accept the Canadian red ensign for a good many years and continued to fly the union jack. But the hon. gentleman says we must not now officially recognize the union jack for a special purpose because it has had no official sanction in this country since 1945.
The fact, Mr. Speaker-and I will try to indicate my reason for stating this-that it has had no official Canadian national sanction since 1945 and that it is the royal union flag is in my view the very reason it should be used as recognition of our association in the commonwealth of nations, and why the Canadian red ensign, which has had official Canadian sanction, should not be so used. I repeat that if it was used-


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? Can the Prime Minister tell us if the union jack is officially known as the commonwealth flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course it is not, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly what we are talking about. I hope to come to that in a few moments if I am given the opportunity. We have felt, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite in order and indeed desirable, as we adopt a distinctive national flag without any of the symbols of our past political associations, to have a flag alongside our national flag which will symbolize our association in the commonwealth of nations and the very special relationship to the Queen. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is quite in order and quite reasonable that we should indicate in our national emblems today that there can be, in this day and age, a loyalty on various levels of associations.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister allow a question? At the time the Minister of Transport made his journey to the United Kingdom or since has Her Majesty the Queen been consulted as to whether the royal union flag would be acceptable as the embodiment of the commonwealth? And did the Prime Minister, on the occasion of the prime ministers' conference, secure from the prime ministers their consent or approval that Canada adopt a commonwealth flag, a flag that is not acceptable to many of the other commonwealths?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish my hon. friend would allow me to deliver my speech in my own way, because I am coming to those various matters. He has brought up these two points, so perhaps I should deal with them now.

In so far as the first point is concerned, it was raised in the early days of the debate and I answered that at the time. There has been no change since that time. I said then, and I repeat now, that naturally when a resolution of this kind was before the Canadian parliament the Queen, through the high commissioner in London, was informally apprised of the fact that this resolution was before parliament. Her advice was not sought. It would have been quite unconstitutional to ask for her advice on a matter which had not yet been decided upon by the Canadian parliament. If I had done that I can imagine what my right hon. friend would be saying today. He would be accusing me of dragging the crown into politics. What we did, as a matter of courtesy, was to inform the Queen of the action or the proposal that was before the Canadian parliament, and indicated to the Queen that if that proposal were accepted she would be asked to take the necessary constitutional action, as Queen. This cannot be done, of course, until parliament has declared itself.
In so far as the second question is concerned, the question of a commonwealth flag, that was not mentioned at the prime ministers' conference at all. It did not come up in any way, shape or form, nor has it come up in any commonwealth meeting since of which I am aware. I have made informal inquiries of certain commonwealth leaders as to whether it may be practicable to consider the possibility of some emblem which would be common to all states of the commonwealth. However, it is quite impracticable at the present time and may be impracticable for a long time to come because of the very nature of the states within the commonwealth. There are monarchies in the commonwealth, are monarchies that recognize the Queen of England, the Queen of Canada or the Queen of Australia. There are republics in the commonwealth. But surely, in this day and age, it is not either wrong or unusual to have emblems flying in a country which denote different forms of association of the people of that country with different international or national organizations.
I believe, therefore, it is logical and desirable to retain in this country an emblem of our association with the other members of the commonwealth. Even though it is not a commonwealth flag, it is a flag which would denote Canada's association with the commonwealth. I will try to explain later why I think the royal union jack is the most logical and best emblem for that purpose.
Canadian Flag


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister say whether the United Kingdom has consented to have Canada use her flag here in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will go ahead with my statement, and if the right hon. gentleman has any questions to ask at the end I will do my best to answer.
This is the emblem, Mr. Speaker, that is recommended by the report to denote our association with the other members of the commonwealth through the Queen. At the moment this is the only constitutional link, the only formal constitutional link, between the various members of the commonwealth, through the Queen. There is no other formal link. I remember very well when that link was first constitutionally recognized. In earlier days before the commonwealth achieved its present organization, it was not necessary because all members were linked by their allegiance to one queen. They were all monarchies inside this association.
In 1948, at a commonwealth conference which I had the honour of attending, the commonwealth was faced with the problem of trying to absorb within its association a republic, a state which owed no allegiance to the Queen and was republican in character. The commonwealth has proved itself, over the years, to be a very adaptable institution indeed. It was able to accommodate itself to this alteration in constitutional structure in one of its members by a formula which has been found to apply to all the new members of the commonwealth since, most of whom are republics. This was done by the official communique of the conference which included this sentence, and this is an important sentence because it does indicate why I believe the union jack is the right emblem for commonwealth association.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My right hon. friend laughs, but perhaps instead of laughing he will listen.


John George Diefenbaker: That was years ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was, indeed, years ago. It was 1948, and it has stood the test of every acquisition to the commonwealth since. This is why it was such an important formula on which to agree at that time, because it has not required any change since that time and there have been a great many changes take place in the commonwealth since that time. The date was April 20, 1949. The communi-

Canadian Flag
que states that: "The government of India have, however, declared and affirmed India's desire to continue her full membership of the commonwealth and her acceptance-that is the republic of India-of the king as the symbol of the free association of the independent member nations-thus the head of the commonwealth."
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me if we are to have a symbolic mark of this kind, an emblem of our association with the other nations of the commonwealth, that emblem should be associated with the Queen-not the king now, the Queen-as head of the commonwealth. Therefore what could be more appropriate for this purpose than the royal union flag, which is the Queen's flag?


John George Diefenbaker: Completely specious.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend is an authority on specious arguments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that the Queen has her own flag, and it is not the union jack?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Indeed I am aware of it. Of course the Queen has her own flag which only the Queen, herself, flies and only the Queen can ever fly over any building in which she happens to be residing at the moment, and which nobody else has any right to fly in any circumstance. This could hardly be used as a flag to signify our association in the commonwealth. Perhaps my hon. friend would consider that a specious argument too.


John George Diefenbaker: No, you have really got near the facts at this point for the first time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe the majority of Canadians wish to have a Canadian national flag which cannot be mistaken for the flag of any other country, and the majority of the members of this house certainly decided that last night. I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that the vast majority of Canadians wish to recognize our membership in the commonwealth and our allegiance to the Queen as head of that commonwealth, as we do to her as Queen of Canada.
Some will argue, and indeed I think my hon. friend took the position this afternoon even though his amendment does not seem to me to support that position, that we do not need any special flag to provide such recognition or that, if we do, the union jack is the wrong flag for the purpose. As I have already indicated, I would disagree with that position both

in regard to the need and the nature of the flag denoting the relationship, and I would like to point out that other members of the commonwealth, that we call the older members of the commonwealth, have made provision for this recognition. The Australian flags act of 1953, section 8, provides:
This act does not affect the right or privilege of a person to fly the union jack.
There is no requirement, but there is a recognition of the desirability of maintaining that emblematic association which we provide for in our recommendation. In the statutes of South Africa while South Africa was a member of the commonwealth-this does not apply now because she has withdrawn from the commonwealth-there was in volume 2, chapter 2, section 7(1) (a) the following:
The flags of the union shall include the union jack to denote the association of the union with other members of the group of nations constituting the British commonwealth of nations.
It is interesting in this connection to recall some words used in this house by a man who passionately advocated a distinctive Canadian national flag, without the emblems of any other association on that flag. I am referring to Mr. Bona Arsenault, who is now a member of the government of Quebec. This is what he said in 1946 when he was passionately arguing in this house for a distinctive national flag. On March 21, 1946, as recorded at page 154 of Hansard for that date he stated:
All nations of the world at all times have used different flags for different tactical purposes...
Since Canada is a member of the British commonwealth, united to her sister nations under the constitutional authority of the same king, I cannot very well see why anyone in this country could reasonably object to the full-sized union jack being officially recognized by this parliament as the official symbol of our partnership in the commonwealth, the finest example in history of mutual friendship between nations and one of the strongest means of maintaining peace in the world in these trying days.
Mr. Bona Arsenault, a very good Canadian nationalist in the right meaning of the word, went on to say:
Too much is involved to try to put forward any sort of narrow nationalism in the face of the distressful conditions that we find in the world today. Not only should we help to maintain the British commonwealth of nations, we should have a commonwealth of all the nations of the world based on the same principles of mutual friendship and collaboration.
We also believe in that, Mr. Speaker, and on occasions in this country, indeed over this building, we fly the blue flag of the United Nations as well.

I believe that the most fitting emblem for this association is the royal union flag, the flag of the Queen, the flag of the monarchy since it was first established in the seventeenth century, the flag which is peculiarly identified with the monarchy and, as such, identified with the commonwealth because the Queen is the head of the commonwealth.


Hugh John Flemming: May I
ask another question? I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it is not true that the flag known as the union flag, to which he has just referred, is the flag of England, the flag of the United Kingdom?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the union jack, the royal union flag, is the royal emblem, and it has been adapted and adopted by the government of the United Kingdom as the flag of the United Kingdom; but is a royal flag any the worse because of the fact that it is the flag of the United Kingdom? It is the royal flag and as such stands for the Queen as head of the commonwealth.
My hon. friend takes exception to the use of the union jack, the royal flag, as standing for our association in the commonwealth whose head is the Queen, but in his amendment he puts forward as the emblem of our association in the commonwealth, under the Queen, the Canadian red ensign, which he admits for 20 years now by order in council has been adopted as a Canadian flag. How can we have a Canadian national flag, and a former Canadian national flag as the flag emblematic of our association with the commonwealth?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a series of statements that are historically unsound. I ask him-


Lester Bowles Pearson: You will have a chance to speak afterward.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him a simple question-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman will just contain himself for about two minutes he will be able to get up on his feet and give me a lecture on history.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I simply ask-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister allow a question? His followers say no. I thought he would not be afraid of a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It appears to be time to recall to the attention of hon. members
20220-705J
Canadian Flag
citation 126 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which once again comes to our assistance:
If a member desires to ask a question during debate, he should first obtain the consent of the member who is speaking. If the latter ignores the request, the former cannot insist, even if he thinks he is being misrepresented. He cannot make a denial during the speech, but he must wait until the member has resumed his seat and then he may ask leave to make a statement, or he must wait until his turn comes, to address the house. Standing order 12 is compulsory. No one has a right to interrupt a member who is addressing the house, by putting a question to him or by making or demanding an explanation. A member may allow interruptions through a sense of courtesy, but it is entirely at his option to give way or not to an immediate explanation.
Further on, paragraph 2 states:
The rule is well known, that interruptions should not be tolerated.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I immediately rise on a question of privilege. You found this rule in the last while. You did not apply it when I was speaking, and let that be perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker. On every occasion when I was speaking, when a statement was made that was challenged from the opposite side, hon. members rose on speeches, privileges and questions. Your Honour was not so careful then, and I say that advisedly and with great regret.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe you yourself must deal as you see fit with the interruptions of the right hon. gentleman. You have read out to him, quite rightly, the rules regarding interruptions. He spoke for an hour and a half the other day and I was never oh my feet except once when he asked me a question, but he has been interrupting me repeatedly, and when you read out the rule against interruptions he attempted to browbeat the Chair. I think that is unbecoming.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, all I have to say to the right hon. gentleman is that that statement is as false as the allegation he has made that the union jack is the Queen's flag.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, you will have to deal with the falsity or otherwise of the allegation. So far as the latter part of the statement which my right hon. friend made is concerned, I am very glad he made it in the way he did, as a straight statement of fact that I had made a false statement regarding the nature of the union jack, the royal union flag. I bring to my assistance in

Canadian Flag
this regard the head of the College of Arms in London, who ought to know about these things. Conceivably he might even know more about this than the right hon. gentleman, although that is only conceivable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps I could say this-


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether this is a question of privilege or a point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Your Honour, it is.


An hon. Member:: What is it?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, the Prime Minister said this was the Queen's flag and then he told us he was going to prove it. All he proved was that it was a royal flag, which everybody knew.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was always under the impression that the Queen was royalty. When the monarch is a Queen then the royal flag is, no doubt, the Queen's flag; and if the right hon. gentleman would prefer to have it the Queen's flag I am sure Garter King of Arms would not object.
If I may summarize, we feel it is desirable to recognize along with our national flag- and there can only be one national flag-a flag which symbolizes our association with the other nations of the commonwealth, and for this purpose the most appropriate symbol is the royal flag because the Queen is the head of the commonwealth; as Queen she is head of the commonwealth.
The hon. gentleman, who began by saying we should not have two flags at all, has moved an amendment which says we should replace the royal flag by the Canadian red ensign which is still, until it is changed by proclamation, the Canadian distinctive national flag by order in council. The hon. gentleman now wishes to put forward as a commonwealth flag a flag which he admits is still the Canadian national flag and which, after it has been replaced by another flag, will not be a commonwealth flag because it

has been the Canadian flag and contains the Canadian coat of arms on it.
I ask the house to decide whether it is fitting that alongside this national flag we should have a flag representing our commonwealth association and, if that is the case, whether the royal flag of the commonwealth is not the best flag for this purpose.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have just one question for the right hon. gentleman. He referred to the Queen's flag. I should like to ask him this. When Her Majesty visits Canada again, assuming she comes into this building, what flag would fly from the peace tower; the union jack or the royal standard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Over the tower, if the Queen herself were in the building, would be flying her royal standard.


Some hon. Members:: The Queen's flag.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On an occasion of that kind I would hope that over other government buildings where the Queen was not present both the red maple leaf flag and the commonwealth flag would be flying side by side.


William Heward Grafftey: Now you have three flags.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the Prime Minister permit me to ask him a question before he ends his remarks? I ask him this not for the purpose of debating anything he may have said, for the moment at least, but for information. If I heard the right hon. gentleman correctly he indicated that the union jack is in fact the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I should like to know whether Her Majesty's government here in Canada has consulted with Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom with respect to this proposal that we should use a flag which is regarded as the flag of the United Kingdom for the purpose set out in the resolution.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They have been made aware of the resolution before this house but it would be quite improper, of course, to consult them about this matter. The Canadian parliament will decide this question. The fact is that the flag which they have adopted as the flag of the United Kingdom is the royal flag, and they adopted it after consulting with the Queen. We have exactly the same right to consult the Queen, if parliament so desires, as to whether a royal banner can be adopted for commonwealth purposes. The British government does not come into this.


Edward Nasserden: I have a question for the Prime Minister. He appears to be concerned about Canada's association with the com-

monwealth, and he believes some emblem should be adopted to show our commonwealth association. My question is this. Has there been any question from any quarter concern-in Canada's association with the commonwealth which raises this subject as a question which needs to be dealt with?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not sure I understood the question. I gather it was whether any other nation in the commonwealth has raised this question.


Edward Nasserden: No. If we are so concerned all of a sudden about asserting our association with the commonwealth, is it because someone has questioned our association with the commonwealth?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is it in doubt?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what the hon. member is driving at.


Reid Scott: I rise at this time to say we concur in the amendment, and that as far as I am aware it will receive the unanimous approval of the New Democratic party for whom I speak at this time.
I should like to begin by complimenting the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton for bringing this matter to the attention of this house and giving us an opportunity to register our views with regard to the proposal. We were unable to do this in the committee. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister began by taking an inflexible position in connection with this proposal. I may say that the argument he advanced was considered by members of the committee, and we did not feel it could stand up to any logical examination.
It is important to register the position taken by the committee. What is being suggested in its report is not a commonwealth flag as such; we do not have the authority to create a commonwealth flag. But we do have the authority to designate an emblem to symbolize our association with the commonwealth until such time as the commonwealth itself may designate a flag.
It is regrettable that the Prime Minister should have seen fit to cast aspersions on the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton because of any position he may have taken in the committee or here in the house. There was agreement among all members of the committee that in order to achieve the greatest possible degree of success each member was free to voice his opinions, to change his views, to modify them, to try to come to an
Canadian Flag
honest compromise with the other members concerned. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton does not deserve the insulting treatment he got this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Reid Scott: I should like to say for the record that I have before me an amendment which I had intended to move. It is almost identical with the one now before the house. We have had an opportunity to examine some of the aspects of the union flag. It seems to me it is clearly a misuse of the union jack to attempt to designate it in the manner proposed by the government. It is beyond argument that the union jack is the flag of Great Britain, and we simply do not have the right to downgrade that flag, the flag of another country, by appropriating it for what we think is a peculiarly Canadian purpose.
It is perfectly reasonable for us to adopt the Canadian red ensign for these purposes because in many ways the Canadian red ensign is a sort of Canadianized union jack. We obtained it from the British merchant navy, we placed our coat of arms upon it, and it has developed a special place in the flag family of Canada. Therefore it is perfectly proper for us to adopt the Canadian red ensign for these purposes, whereas it is completely improper and I think is in fact an insult to the union jack to downgrade it by appropriating it for what is purely a Canadian purpose. I hope there will be enough members in this house to carry the amendment and defeat the proposition put forward in the flag committee's report.
One other observation that could be made is that the flag committee itself did not have a very long period of time in which to discuss the principle of a flag for our commonwealth association; most of our time was spent in trying to designate a distinctive Canadian flag. I wish members would stop talking of two flags. The committee was unanimously of the view that we were striving to create a distinctive Canadian national flag.


David Vaughan Pugh: Hear, hear.


Reid Scott: But none of us at any time- at least this certainly applies to myself-ever felt this precluded us from dealing with the principle of a flag, not a national flag but a flag to symbolize our association in the commonwealth and our allegiance to the crown. This was clearly before the committee. We were asked to report upon the flag question, and that included both the resolutions that were before this chamber for consideration.

Canadian Flag
I think all of us in the committee were very, very impressed by the arguments put forward by those in the committee who would have wished to see the red ensign as Canada's distinctive national flag. We listened to those arguments with respect. We could not agree that they were sufficient to constitute the red ensign as a distinctive flag for Canada, but we did realize the deep loyalties and long traditions that have grown up around the red ensign. It is a Canadian flag and it is a flag which I think it is perfectly proper, perfectly appropriate and perfectly desirable to now give a special place by designating it as a flag to symbolize our association in the commonwealth.
All the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister this afternoon simply do not stand up, and he cannot get around the very real barrier posed by the fact that the union jack is not a Canadian flag and we have no right to appropriate it for our own purposes. That is one reason I regret that the government have started out with their usual inflexible position on this matter, and I hope that as the debate progresses they wall become convinced, as many of us are convinced, that they are wrong and that it would be far more appropriate and proper to designate the Canadian red ensign for this special purpose. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we will support the amendment when it comes to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


David Vaughan Pugh: No, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, might I say right oil the bat that I agree with the last speaker's statements with reference to a second flag for Canada. However, I do not agree that in the committee we all felt there should be two flags; in fact my distinct impression is that early on in the flag committee talks I and the last speaker brought out the fact that we were going to choose a flag for Canada which was finally put through as a distinctive national flag. But there was no doubt in my mind, along with others, that we were working for only one flag for Canada despite the fact that two resolutions had been put before us. We discussed the two resolutions and we said "No, we do not want two flags". I am not alone, and was not alone in the committee, in that view.
However, I would just like to say one or two things following on what the Prime Minister has said. I believe he was a little off the beat. I must say that I hate following him in a speech because many of the points he puts forward I find rather difficult at times to follow from the point of view of sense. I have stated that the committee believed we should have one flag and one flag only, and I believe this change in government thinking is just one more attempt to wipe the Canadian red ensign right off the face of the map. Their last minute substitution of the royal union flag just does not bear any merit at all.
The Prime Minister had a great deal to say about the royal union flag and the reason for our using it, which he said is historical. The royal union flag and its predecessors in England and those countries comprising Great Britain were always the Queen's flags, the Prime Minister said, and the royal union flag was the flag for the whole of the country.
If my recollection is correct, out of the mouths of the witnesses the Liberals called in the flag committee there is no question at all but that the royal union flag and its predecessors were not the flags of the country. The royal union flag was a distinct naval flag for use at sea only; it was not supposed to be used even on land bases. However, after a great many naval victories it became a very popular flag and through usage, tradition and the fact that the British people liked to fly it over their own home base, it became popular. It became popular first of all not by edict, any parliamentary reference or anything like that, but because it was flown over the homes and was finally popularized to the extent that the government made it the flag of the country. This is my recollection.
I would like to draw an analogy between that and the Canadian red ensign. After drawing the analogy I would only point out that the Canadian red ensign, our present Canadian flag, is the flag we should have if we are to have two flags. That is why I seconded this amendment. The Canadian flag that we now have-the red ensign is still our flag- has flown in this country since its beginning in 1867. It was the first flag to fly on any flagstaff over our government buildings, and it stayed there until a Liberal government in 1904, for some reason or another, hauled it down.
But that did not kill the red ensign. It came back and-we all know its history from a legislative point of view-has been Canada's flag since that time, and is still until an act of this parliament changes it. During
IMr. Scott.]

all that time usage and tradition were the only things that made it Canada's flag. Usage and tradition have made it Canada's flag in the same way that usage and tradition made the royal union flag the flag of Great Britain. Let us not have any mumbo-jumbo over the Queen's flag.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is more appropriate for this purpose. We have a Canadian flag now. I must say at the beginning that it is a flag which I did not want to see changed in any way, shape or form, and I fought for it in committee until such time as we had a vote on it and our red ensign was turned down. At that stage I sought other means, along with other Conservative members, to produce some form of the red ensign and, failing that, find a flag which would embody those traditional symbols of the founding races of Canada, namely the French and the English.
I should like now to touch upon the history of the use of the Canadian red ensign in Canada. Many people feel that this flag was created overnight. The usage of this flag has been responsible for its acceptance. It was not adopted as a result of some parliamentary whim of a Liberal government some time after 1904, when it was taken down. It was again adopted as the Canadian flag after serious consideration; and what it meant to the people of those days it means to the people of Canada today.
If we want a change then I will agree to such a change, but to make my position absolutely clear in this regard I must say that the committee from the beginning intended to select one flag for Canada and one flag only. The resolution passed by the committee included the word "only" in association with a national flag. Obviously we were thinking of two flags, one to be the national flag and a second to show our allegiance to the Queen and our membership in the commonwealth. Many arguments were presented to the committee in this regard, but as far as I am concerned the word "only" means, only one flag for Canada.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has suggested that we should show our allegiance to the Queen and our membership in the commonwealth by the adoption of a second flag. Surely we do not need a second flag to show our allegiance to the Queen. Other commonwealth countries have not adopted flags to show their allegiance to the Queen or their memberships in the commonwealth. Throughout our history we have demonstrated time and time again our allegiance to the Queen.
Canadian Flag
If we adopt, as our final choice, the one red maple leaf flag as our national flag, that should be accepted as our flag for all purposes.
The only other argument in support of the adoption of a second flag is that it will show our relationship to the commonwealth. Canada has shown leadership in commonwealth studies, and has done a great deal to further commonwealth relations. We have never been backward in doing so. Therefore do we need a second flag to exemplify our commonwealth relationship Do we need a flag other than the red ensign to show our allegiance to the Queen?
The Prime Minister stated that the vast majority of Canadians desire a second flag, and indicated that the evidence supported his statement. I have never seen any evidence, certainly none was presented to the committee, that supported that argument. Has any member ever talked with an individual on the streets of the cities of Canada and heard that individual state that we need another flag to show our allegiance to the Queen and our relationship to the commonwealth?
For the reasons I have stated I was, from the beginning of the committee meetings, opposed to the adoption of a second flag. In this regard I should like to support the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) who said that the Prime Minister was despicable in his remarks about the speech made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming).


Reid Scott: I did not use the word "despicable", I said he was insulting.


David Vaughan Pugh: Using the words of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was insulting not only to that member, and other Conservative members of the committee, but to his own Liberal members whose votes in the committee were to be kept secret.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question of a purely factual nature which I ask, because I feel what the Prime Minister said has been misunderstood? As I understand it, there was only one vote cast against the seventh report of the committee. Anyone who can do elementary arithmetic would come to the conclusion that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon.
minister asking a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking the hon. member whether he thinks that in view of the fact that only one vote was cast against the report, it is reasonable to infer that the vote was not cast by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton?

Canadian Flag


David Vaughan Pugh: I should like to thank the hon. minister tor his lesson in arithmetic.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could clarify the situation.


David Vaughan Pugh: I am now making a speech. You can clarify whatever situations you wish to clarify when you are making your own speech.
May I point out that the hon. minister may be accomplished as far as elementary arithmetic is concerned, but perhaps not so accomplished as far as elementary common sense is concerned.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but for the sake of clarification I should like to state that there was only one vote against the report, and it was cast by myself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The facts presented by the hon. member do not constitute a question of privilege. The hon. member is aware that he is entitled to take part in this debate, at which time he can clarify any statement he feels should be corrected.


David Vaughan Pugh: As I suggested, Mr. Speaker, the minister may be good at elementary arithmetic but he is not so good, as far as common sense is concerned. If he will add up the votes he will find that there were 14 votes. There were seven votes cast for the motion, two against, with five abstentions. The chairman did not vote. That makes a total of 15 votes, and that is what I meant by elementary arithmetic. Perhaps I should not insult the minister's intelligence by saying that he is not good so far as common sense is concerned, but excuse him on the basis that he has not read the report thoroughly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit another question? Is it not true that the final vote on the seventh report of the committee, as read by the Prime Minister, indicated that there was only one vote against, with a number of abstentions? The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) has indicated that he cast the vote against the report.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Vaughan Pugh: Whatever the circumstances, the votes taken in the committee were to remain secret, and it was certainly not proper for the Prime Minister to indicate what took place.
The Prime Minister rather scathingly attacked the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton,

who said that two flags were not necessary. I suggest he attacked him in this way because of his proposed amendment, which does in fact suggest a different flag. In actual fact the reasoning behind that amendment lies in the knowledge that the votes on the flag issue now being taken in the house are not consistent with the votes taken on the same issues at the meetings of the special committee. Adoption of the red ensign was defeated by the committee, and that is a matter of record. Following that defeat we did not turn our tails and scurry home but attempted to find a solution to our problem by the adoption of a modification of the red ensign. When that attempt was thwarted, we tried to select a flag which would incorporate emblems symbolic of the contributions of the two founding races of this country. I have used that same analogy today.
It is perfectly obvious that the government is being supported by members of other parties in this house in its desire to approve two flags. Now that they have taken a stand we are asking them to consider, instead of the royal union flag, Canada's flag of the past, her ensign. It is rather interesting to note what happened in the committee as set out in the report. In the third paragraph there is the following:
It was moved "that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that the Canadian red ensign may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth of nations and of her allegiance to the crown". An amendment was moved to substitute the words "royal union flag, generally known as the union jack" for the words "Canadian red ensign".
Then the votes are set out. One can read this easily and quickly, but any member who was on that committee knows that there was a wealth of time and words behind the final adoption of the recommendation in the seventh report of the flag committee. Members of the house should consult their own members who were on that committee to find out just what their attitude was.
We had the distinct impression that word had come down from Joey Smallwood that if a recommendation for the royal union flag was not made he would be offended and would continue to fly it anyway. That is what we thought. We expressed that view and we were laughed at. I would say to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) that he should sit down and consult with the Liberals who were members of that committee because as I said a great deal of time was

spent and many words were uttered in that regard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Were both motions moved by Liberals?


David Vaughan Pugh: There was a lot of emotion on the part of the Liberals, and I will leave it at that. I do not want to go on at length at this time. I think I have made clear the basis of the recommendation of the committee that there should be only one distinctive national flag. I believe 1 have made my feelings very clear on the matter, as did the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) who moved the amendment. As I have said, we could not understand why there was a change right at the end.
I respect the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) because he was a distinct asset to that committee, but I know he will recall the argument that preceded the recommendation for one national flag. I have put forward my argument why we should not have two flags and at the same time why we have now moved an amendment for a second flag. I say that if Canada has a flag today which is hers through tradition and general usage it is the Canadian red ensign. In seconding the amendment I wish to emphasize the fact that if we are to have a second flag for the two distinct purposes that have been set out, to express allegiance to the crown and our commonwealth affiliation, then there is one flag in Canada today that does so to a T, our present Canadian red ensign.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the amendment to the motion for concurrence in the seventh report of the special committee I should like to begin by suggesting that in spite of some of the arguments that have been made it is completely clear in my mind that there is a distinction between the flag adopted by the vote early this morning and what we are considering now. I think the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) outlined this very well when he said that the committee had decided, as contained in their report, that only one national flag would be adopted. Paragraph 5 of the sixth report of the special committee, subparagraph (b), sets out the position clearly in these words:
Your committee considered the following motions: ... (b) The adoption of only one national flag -motion carried 14 to zero.
So there is no confusion whatever, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that the committee's decision was for only one national flag and that
Canadian Flag
that flag should be the single red maple leaf on a white background with two red bars.
I want to say, as is recorded in Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings, that I did not support the recommendation made by the committee to the house, but the consensus of the house has now been taken and so far as I am concerned I intend to accept and respect the decision made by the House of Commons respecting Canada's national flag.
There is one other thing I think we should be clear about and that is that this house and, indeed, parliament as a whole, does not have the right to create a commonwealth flag. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) pointed this out. I believe we have the right to designate a symbol of our allegiance to the commonwealth and to the crown. The Prime Minister argued that if we are going to do this it would be proper for us to select the royal union flag as that symbol. So far as I am concerned, that may be an argument but it is not conclusive from the point of view of ruling out all other symbols that could in fact serve for this purpose.
It is my personal opinion that the flag that is designated as being suitable for the purpose of displaying our allegiance to the commonwealth and to the crown could in fact be some other symbol than the royal union flag. I believe that the Canadian red ensign, which contains the royal union flag as part of its composition, with a distinctive Canadian content would in fact be a more appropriate symbol. As I have just stated, the Canadian red ensign has the royal union flag on it but there is also the Canadian coat of arms in the fly, and in my opinion this is a preferable symbol for the purposes suggested in the seventh report.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton moved the amendment now before us and it is coincidental that the hon. member for Danforth indicated he was prepared to move essentially the same amendment. For your information, Mr. Speaker, I have written out before me a similar amendment. It was, therefore, just simply a matter of time and who was recognized first.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go on at length about this matter, except to say that the sixth and seventh reports of the committee are matters of free votes within our party. There may be other members of our party who wish to express their own individual views respecting this matter. So far as I am concerned, I am ready to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming). I hope that we can

Canadian Flag
have unanimous consent in this house to accept the amendment. The reason I say that is contained in the last sentence of the amendment moved by the hon. member in which it is stated that the committee, for such purpose, be revived.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that under the rules of this house it is not proper for this house to amend a committee report. If we do not accept a committee report and we have some suggestions for changing it, then under the rules that amendment must contain instructions to the committee when the report is referred back. Of course, for such purposes, the committee must be revived. If there were unanimous consent in this house, however, I believe we could save a great deal of time by asking for that unanimous consent and amending the seventh report of the committee by substituting the Canadian red ensign for the royal union flag. Then, we could get on with dealing with this matter and perhaps complete it during this sitting. I appeal to the members of the house on all sides to accept this amendment unanimously so that it would not be necessary to revive the committee and we could get on with other government business.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, after sitting for six weeks on the special flag committee, which was also instructed to study a proposal similar to the amendment proposed today, I had then decided not to support the motion along those lines, for the adoption of a flag identifying us as a member of the commonwealth or as an associate member of the British commonwealth countries, if that flag were to be the union jack.
I rose earlier to say that I was the only one to vote against it at that time. I must point out again today that in this matter, I am speaking for myself. Everyone is free to speak as he sees fit. I am convinced that to refer the matter again to the committee would be to no avail and would delay everything.
The amendment which has just been introduced tends to substitute the red ensign for the union jack. I think that it is a trap. We have just voted last night in favour of a distinctive national flag. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, we have sweated hours and even days to arrive at last night's result. As a member of the committee, I can even say that the selection of such a flag brought tears in the eyes of many. Those members of the committee who are in the house this after-

noon could confirm my statement. They worked industriously and with all their hearts.
I am wondering today why we must choose a flag to show our allegiance to and our association with the British commonwealth of nations. Did we not adopt last night a distinctive national flag which, in due course, will become official? That flag could very well represent us at all times and in all circumstances.
I fail to understand also why the Canadian government is obliged to choose a flag to show our allegiance to the commonwealth. If the commonwealth wants a flag to identify its member nations, it should choose one.
It is true that we are free to do so, but it is very difficult to find any sense in all that.
We now have a flag-a flag that we got with great difficulties. Everybody here and outside the house knows that. I think that the single maple leaf flag will be quite appropriate to represent our country within the commonwealth. Because of what this flag means, of the eagerness displayed to get it, of our pride in flying it, because also of the sincerity of the Canadian people as evidenced by that symbol we chose last night, I think that this emblem would be quite appropriate to represent our country within any organization. In closing, I say that it is not necessary to have a second flag, one is enough to represent Canada. Let us hoist that flag, telling ourselves that it serves all purposes and that we are entitled to fly it in any circumstances, as it was adopted by parliament. It is true that we are also a member of the British commonwealth of nations.
But it is not so much the interpretation that could be attributed to it when it will be hoisted across the nation. It will not be hoisted only to show that we are a member of the commonwealth, but as a national flag, and some will defend it as such. It will then be absolutely false.
One must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that this flag hides legitimate feelings which deserve to be defended with the greatest ardour, the greatest unity, as it is a national flag. On the other hand, today we are presented with a flag which has so many ties for some groups across the country that it is intended to impose it as a second flag, a second class flag, to impose it simply to show our allegiance to the commonwealth.
The best sign of allegiance-and we can never say it enough-is a national flag, the

one we adopted yesterday; and when I heard, with my own ears, the anthem sung yesterday, I saw what emotions the adoption of this flag had given rise to.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot reveal how the vote was taken, but the matter was studied and discussed in the committee. I must abstain from revealing how the other members of the committee voted after these negotiations, but I adopted a position in committee, I maintain it today and I shall defend it tomorrow.
I did not approve the choice of this flag in the committee, and I will not support it today; my colleagues can follow the dictates of their conscience, but I for one oppose the second motion. This does not mean that I can be expected to support the other, for when the second comes, I will adopt exactly the same attitude. For, in my opinion, one national flag is sufficient to represent us anywhere, anytime.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be those of congratulation to the hon. member for Vic-toria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) for presenting in a highly competent and capable manner an argument that should find great merit in the eyes of the government, since he was proposing that the government adopt as our commonwealth symbol a flag over which we have some right and jurisdiction.
If nothing else was learned from the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the interjections during it there is one definite lesson, that we in this country have no right to ask the people of the United Kingdom to provide us with their flag for use as a commonwealth symbol. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, we have every right and justification to propose the Canadian red ensign as that symbol.
In my speech yesterday I listed the reasons that I felt the flag design which was adopted by vote early this morning would not be satisfactory as a national flag. Already we see some of the justification for the argument I made then, an argument which was made by many other hon. members on a number of occasions. The flag design adopted last night is not capable of conveying an association with any other country which belongs to the commonwealth because it does not contain within it those symbols which are inherent in the red ensign, a flag capable of being both a national and international flag in indicating our association with our com-
Canadian Flag
monwealth friends and the contribution Canada has made over the years to the building of the commonwealth of nations.
Despite the conviction displayed by the Prime Minister in his speech in supporting the recommendation of the flag committee, the design recommended by the committee is not at all as satisfactory as the Canadian ensign would be in representing our commonwealth association. He presented in a most illogical argument a degree of gobbledy-gook unsurpassed during the last flag debate and, in my opinion, not surpassable in the present debate.
Last Friday the Prime Minister made a high sounding speech indicating his views on why we should adopt a new flag. I did not agree with the arguments he made then, nor do I now, but I admit he made a significant contribution to the debate. But his speeches earlier this morning and this afternoon have added nothing to any feeling of respect for him and the office he holds, principally because of the attitude he adopted and the method which he used in endeavouring to get his points across.
One of the most interesting portions of his speech this afternoon was that in which he admitted for the first time that the Canadian red ensign was our national flag. Until he said that I had always held the impression, according to statements made by the Prime Minister, that we did not have a national flag and that what he was endeavouring to do was produce one. Now, all of a sudden, after the vote has been taken and a new flag chosen, we discover through the mouth of the Prime Minister that the Canadian red ensign was, according to his mind, all the time a national flag.
The Prime Minister attacked the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton in a most despicable way. He laughed at the hon. member and told him how illogical he was. If the hon. member was illogical in any way it is because of the illogical procedure of the government in endeavouring to produce a second flag for the Canadian nation. What the hon. member was trying to do, as we in the official opposition have tried to do on so many occasions during the life of this parliament, was put forward arguments which he hoped would make sense not only to the Canadian people but to other members of the commonwealth. Since I have been in this house the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) has displayed a devotion and dedication to the betterment of the Canadian way of life which is a credit not only to his

Canadian Flag
constituency and to his province but to this nation. He is not the type of man who should find the Prime Minister deriving great joy and benefit from deriding the remarks he has made in putting forward a cogent argument with regard to an illogical recommendation on the part of the government.
Why should the Canadian red ensign not be the flag which represents our association with the commonwealth? What better flag could be flown from the flagpoles of this nation to portray our association with that great body? I cannot think of anything of which Canadians would be more proud than the knowledge that this house had at last found a place in this country for a flag which has meant so much to so many for so many years. As I said yesterday, I appreciate that this new flag may in days to come acquire something of the meaning which attaches to the Canadian red ensign today. But it does not have that meaning now. If we are to do anything for this new flag in the hope that it will become an acceptable symbol of this nation, we should produce alongside it, since the government desires two flags, one which is steeped in the history and traditions of this land, one which means so much to those who have lost loved ones in two world wars, one which means so much to the builders of this nation. I point out again that this is a flag which incorporates in it the union jack; it has in it the stuff of which the commonwealth is made, especially the British tradition which is so important and which has played so large a part in the development of this nation of ours. Surely the fact that the New Democratic party and the Social Credit party find a degree of merit in this amendment which they could not find when it came to the selection of a unique national flag should be an indication to the government that it would be wiser and saner to accept this proposal by my hon. friend from Victoria-Carleton and have it adopted, without the degree of debate and rancour associated with the vote which was taken early this morning.
I am not interested in debating at great length the value of a second flag to this nation. I am not interested in debating whether we should have one, two, three or four flags flying from the flagpoles of this country. But I am interested in seeing some common sense used, if we are to accept the second flag, in the selection of that flag. We as Canadians can find many more reasons in favour of the adoption of the Canadian red ensign than can be found in favour of the adoption of

the union jack. It is true there was a time when the union jack was used as widely in this nation as was the Canadian red ensign. There was probably a time when Canadians did not know whether the union jack or the Canadian red ensign should be the official flag of this nation. But that time has long passed.
If anything was achieved by the debate which has just ended it was that great bodies of Canadians in all parts of this nation were convinced that the Canadian red ensign has been the flag of this country ever since 1867. A great many of them for many years hence will continue to fly it and to respect it. They will still consider it to be the flag of Canada. What more logical step could this parliament take than to adopt it, thus recognizing the feelings which are held, and deeply held, by so many people in this country today? For many Canadians it will not be easy to move from the Canadian red ensign to a red maple leaf flag. If we were to adopt the Canadian red ensign as our commonwealth symbol it would at least give these people an opportunity during the period of transition to fly the flag they want to fly, knowing that it still had some meaning in this country.
Nothing which the Prime Minister said today convinces me there is any justification for accepting the union jack rather than the Canadian red ensign. I believe there are many other members in this chamber who remained unconvinced by what the right hon. gentleman had to say. I believe that in his own party there is less acceptance of the union jack than there is of the red ensign. After all is said and done, after votes have been recorded and after a new flag design has been adopted by this house, I remain convinced that there are many members of the Liberal party who feel great devotion for the Canadian red ensign. They do not want to see it hauled down from the flagpoles of this nation. They feel deeply about this. Now, at this moment, they have an opportunity to do something about it by urging the Prime Minister and his colleagues to accept the amendment which is before the house, thus ending this flag question so that we may go forward to deal constructively with the material and economic affairs of this nation which the people who sent us here wish us to deal with as prudently as possible.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to enter into the debate on this amendment at this time, but rather to speak on the main motion. However, after listening to some of the

speeches of this afternoon I feel I should enter into the debate. I am perhaps one of the last of the members of the flag committee to speak during this flag debate. First of all I would also like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for appointing me to the committee. It was not a task that I asked for but it was a task I was happy to carry out, not only for the Prime Minister but in my view for Canadians across this country.
I found on that committee, together with the other members of all parties, close friendships and close associations of mind although we differed in certain respects. I found that apart from our differences in certain respects we could always be friendly and sociable. I am happy therefore that this committee gave me an opportunity to know some members of this house somewhat better. I disagree with some of the remarks that have been made with regard to the Prime Minister's speech. I think the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) used the words, in connection with that speech, "insulting" and "despicable". He also suggested that some things had been said with derision. I am sure the Prime Minister did not intend to be insulting or derisive. I knew the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton before being appointed to the flag committee, and during the meetings of the committee and before that time I always had a great deal of respect for him, although we were of different minds on this subject. I thought he would be the last to suggest that the remarks of the Prime Minister should be taken in this vein and used against him.
Certain remarks have been made in this house with respect to the decision of the committee regarding one national flag as contained in the sixth report of the committee. It is true that the report stated that a vote was taken on one national flag for Canada but, as the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) pointed out, during the committee meetings it was made very clear and all members of the committee knew very well- and I was also one who raised this question -that although there was to be a vote on one national flag for Canada it was to be without prejudice to the committee dealing with a flag symbolizing our connection with the commonwealth of nations and our loyalty to the Queen. I challenge any member of that committee to deny that as a fact.
My views on a national flag were well known in the committee and are known in my constituency. I wanted to speak in the debate on the sixth report of the committee,
Canadian Flag
but circumstances prevented my so doing. However, I have no hesitation in making my views known with respect to the seventh report of the committee. I respect the views of the hon. member for Danforth and the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois). The hon. member for Danforth at all times -he stated this in the house and I am sure he will not think I am taking too much of a liberty in stating it again-supported the Canadian red ensign as being the flag symbolic of our commonwealth association. That view was always held by the hon. member for Danforth. Although I assume that when the vote was taken he may have voted for the union jack, I believe he did so reluctantly because he was always for the Canadian red ensign being the flag designated for our commonwealth association.
The hon. member for Megantic was also opposed to any kind of flag symbolizing our commonwealth association. I respect completely this hon. member's view. However, Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to draw attention to the remarks made in committee by the mover of this amendment, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, and the seconder, the hon member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh). I am sorry they are not present at the moment. I would point out that the remarks made in the committee, when the proposal was put forward that there be a flag symbolizing our commonwealth connections and our loyalty to the Queen, should be discussed by hon. members opposite, as a loyal opposition which sincerely believes that the Canadian red ensign should be the flag designated to symbolize our commonwealth association, with the mover and seconder of the amendment, because the views they propounded in the committee were exactly opposite to those they are now propounding.
I can understand the views of those who believe the Canadian red ensign should be the flag designated for this purpose. I also, being honest with myself, held that view and I held it, I might add, somewhat strongly. But then I kept looking into the matter further, when it was brought to my attention that perhaps it should not be designated as the flag for commonwealth purposes. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the views expressed by the Prime Minister today helped me to see why it should not be so designated. In fact a question was asked by, I believe, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), "Were they Liberals who moved both motions?" The answer was yes; the hon. member for Leeds admitted that he

Canadian Flag
was the one who moved the amendment designating the union jack as the commonwealth flag, and another Liberal member moved the original motion that it should be the Canadian red ensign.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), was it?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I cannot recall who it was, but I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I believe if that hon. member was here he would admit that. I see that the hon. member for Danforth agrees with my recollection. I listened to the arguments put forward this afternoon by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton for whom, as I have said, I have always had respect, even before I became a member of the flag committee, although we differed at times. The mover and the seconder of this amendment are the same members who argued in committee that the Canadian red ensign should not be relegated to a secondary position. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary argued strongly and sincerely that he would not see the Canadian red ensign in a secondary position at any time, even if the one national flag for Canada was adopted. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I found the statements made today by the seconder of this amendment incongruous and contradictory. I am not arguing with his reasons for changing his mind, but surely he should indicate those reasons to this house. He argued very strongly in favour of his position, as have many other members of the Conservative party.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: While he is dealing with people who have changed their minds, will he tell us why the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) changed his mind?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I do not know why that hon. member changed his mind. If that member was present perhaps he would give you an answer. Although I have had discussions with him, he has not expressed his reasons, and I do not think it is my function to explain such a change of opinion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why did the Prime Minister change his mind?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I have no knowledge of that either. Perhaps the hon. member should 
have directed his question to the Prime Minister when he was here today.
The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) stated that the Prime Minister had said today that the Canadian red ensign was the national flag of Canada, and of course we have heard a great deal on that subject. The Prime Minister has stated on many occasions, and I support him, that the Canadian red ensign was originally intended to be used as the national flag of Canada until parliament ruled otherwise. That argument has been repeated here on many occasions.
I am of neither French nor English stock, although I was born in this country. My grandparents were immigrants to Canada, and I am thankful that they came here rather than somewhere else. My wife is of English and Scottish descent, so I do not know what my children could be called. In any event we have too many hyphenated names around here as far as I am concerned. Perhaps my children should be referred to as English-Scottish-Italian-Canadians. However I have always considered them to be strictly, only and always Canadians, and I feel very strongly about this.
Many individuals have suggested that in my point of view I am overlooking British history. Many individuals living in my riding, who are of English speaking and U.E.L. stock, do not take exception to the flag adopted this morning. I can give the names of some of these people, who would not be opposed to my doing so, but I will not do so at this time.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: The hon. member laughs, but I suggest that he knows many individuals of the same type who live in his riding.
As I suggested, many people have spoken to me harshly because they feel I have forgotten British tradition, and British jurisprudence in law. I would be lacking in respect for, and ignoring those principles I learned at university if I were to forget either British tradition or the tradition and culture of my own family, and I say with a great deal of reluctance that those who would do so are neither true to themselves, their consciences or anyone else.
I am in favour of a flag which denotes our commonwealth relations and our loyalties, if you will, to the Queen. I am not in agreement with those hon. members, such as the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), who suggests that because there is something missing in the one national flag

which we have proposed we feel the need for a second flag. Anyone who feels that the symbols on a flag represent feelings that can be lost when those symbols are replaced does not hold true feelings for that which the flag represents. I suggest such individuals have never held dear to their hearts those things represented by a flag, if they can believe that such things can be lost by a change in the flag.
The members of the Conservative party who sat on the special flag committee saw fit to absent themselves during two votes. On the first occasion the vote concerned the adoption of the Canadian red ensign as representative of our commonwealth relationship. The second occasion was on an amendment that the flag to indicate that relationship should be the union jack. If their feelings were so strong in this regard why have they adopted a different attitude at this time? Why, having taken the attitude they took in the committee, do they now in this house propose an obviously illogical amendment?
The royal union flag, commonly known as the union jack, still flies in many areas of this country, particularly in Ontario. One has only to look at high schools, elementary schools and public buildings to observe the union jack. Why should the union jack not continue to be flown in this country? I am sure that it will not cease to be flown because of the adoption of this amendment. I am sure the Canadian red ensign will not cease to be flown as the result of the adoption of the flag which we voted on early this morning.
I do not suggest for a moment that we should attempt to stop the citizens of this country from flying either of those flags. However, there is nothing at all wrong with flying the union jack in this country as an indication of our allegiance to the crown and our membership in the commonwealth, particularly when it is flown by the government of Canada and those citizens of Canada who will continue to fly it, in any event, on appropriate occasions. I do not profess to know all of the occasions on which the union jack should be flown. I have always felt that the Canadian red ensign is a beautiful flag, and I still feel that way. I do disagree with those who suggest that the Canadian red ensign imparts a specific Canadian message, but that does not mean I disrespect the feelings of hon. members who think otherwise.
We learned from experts who appeared before the committee that the red ensign came to us from the British admiralty, and that as a result of usage it was adopted by order in
Canadian Flag
council as the Canadian national flag in 1945, at which time it was stated that it should continue to be the Canadian national flag until a future parliament decided otherwise, and adopted a distinctive flag. I cannot accede to the argument that we can fly the Canadian national flag proposed now by the government while at the same time fly the Canadian red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms.
I went along with the suggestion to substitute the union jack for the Canadian red ensign because I felt very strongly and sincerely that the Canadian red ensign should not be placed in a secondary position, as a flag representative of our commonwealth relations. I think the amendment to the motion now before us deals with this suggestion in even stronger terms than I have used.


An hon. Member:: It is easy.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: It may be easy but-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I will be through in a moment and I will be glad to answer anything then. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) stated in his speech that he saw no evidence in the flag committee that there should be other than one national flag. I have already given my view on that and it is substantiated by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott). I put out the challenge that this is not so, that there was always the qualification that it would be with no prejudice to the committee discussing the matter at a later date.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) stated today, I felt during the debate on the amendment that to be consistent with their views and with the views of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary they would have moved an amendment to delete altogether the recommendation made in the seventh report of the committee. I do not wish to put forward to members opposite that they should not have changed their minds. Of course they should. We all have the liberty and the freedom to do so, but I felt I should try to clarify some of the things that were said during the debate on this amendment.
If the amendment should carry, my own personal feeling is that I am quite prepared to continue respecting the Canadian red ensign not only as the flag designated to represent our commonwealth association and our loyalty to the crown but as a flag which I admit and have always stated has some history in the development of this country. It

Canadian Flag
has some history. I disagree that it should be our national flag but I am not one who has ever said that it has no history whatsoever.
I will conclude my remarks now and wait to speak on the motion itself, if we get to it. Before sitting down I will accept the question that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) may have had.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will reserve my question and answer the hon. member in a speech I hope to make later today.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) was labouring at some length the question of the logicality or otherwise of the position taken by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) when he introduced the amendment. He appeared to be rather puzzled by it. I should like to say at once that I find nothing illogical about the fact that this amendment was introduced by the hon. member for Vic-toria-Carleton. I can understand the preoccupation of the hon. member for Hamilton West, having been a member of the committee, with the ins and outs of all the votes that took place, but it seems to me that those in the official opposition who have spoken so far *on the proposition now before us have made it quite clear that in the first instance they would have preferred a single flag without any other arrangement, that that single flag should have continued to be the red ensign and that they reserved their position on the second proposition in the committee and abstained for that quite logical reason. However, when the decision made by the house last night is given full effect it will result in the removing of the red ensign from the Canadian scene in any official sense, and it is logical that the official opposition should now seek to propose the amendment that is before us.
I say at once, Mr. Speaker, that I do not share their line of reasoning in this respect. I made a public statement in my own constituency when the original resolutions in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) appeared on the order paper. I said that while I did not necessarily agree with all the particulars contained in those resolutions I personally liked the idea of Canada having a national flag of a distinctive maple leaf design and I also liked the idea of having a flag which would be a symbol of our relationship with the commonwealth and our allegiance to the Queen. That has been my position ever since.
I have not participated in the debate since it began except briefly for a few minutes the

other day, but I have a few things I should like to say with reference to the amendment now before us, which I may say I support quite strongly. I listened rather carefully to the statement made by the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon and I must say I was a little surprised that, after having been so reticent about participating in the earlier discussions, he should suddenly launch himself to the forefront at such an early stage of the debate on this motion.
When the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) spoke earlier he urged that some of the members of the Liberal party, who he feels have an attachment to the red ensign, should do some urging of their leaders to reconsider their position and to consider supporting the amendment. In my view the hon. member for Cumberland is suggesting a rather circuitous route. So far as I am concerned I appeal directly to those members of the Liberal party, in the light of the declaration that there will be a free vote, to show their attachment to the retention of the red ensign for the particular purposes suggested in the report of the committee, namely as a symbol of our association with the commonwealth and of our allegiance to the crown.
My assessment of the Prime Minister's arguments was that they were embedded purely in the ancient principles of heraldry. He had some authorities and I am not going to quarrel with the correctness of the views of the authorities he cited. But I am going to suggest that with regard to the question of the kind of flag symbols we are going to have there are considerations which are of more vital and vibrant importance than strict adherence to all the principles of ancient heraldry. As a matter of fact, I think we have already ploughed a little new ground in this connection by the action the house has already taken in connection with the other motion. I am not suggesting that such considerations should be entirely ignored and in my view they are not entirely ignored in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton which my colleague, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), indicated he would have been prepared to move had it not already been proposed. I feel that the original suggestion brought forward by the flag committee ignores the very thing which was symbolized in the earlier report of the committee, namely that history is not a static or a dead thing. This report of the committee ignores the fact that the British empire and the British commonwealth is something which is living, evolving and mov-

ing on into the future which I, for one, hope will be as splendid as it has been in many respects in the past.
At the conclusion of his remarks I asked the Prime Minister whether or not the Canadian government had consulted with or made any attempt to ascertain the views of the government of the United Kingdom in respect of the proposal that we might adopt the royal union flag as the symbol of our allegiance to the commonwealth. I did so specifically because of my feeling that, while at one time we were in effect under the umbrella of the United Kingdom, we were an extension of it, since 1931 that has not been the case. We are, in fact, an independent nation even though we owe allegiance to the Queen who is one in person with the Queen of the United Kingdom. It would have been simply a matter of courtesy, in my view, apart from anything else, before such a proposal as this were placed before the Canadian parliament, at least to have had some sort of assurance that the government and people of the United Kingdom were willing and happy that we should do so. At least we should know if they are unhappy about it.
The Prime Minister's arguments concerning the origination and derivation of the royal union jack may be quite sound and logical from a historical point of view. I am not going to enter that argument or attempt to set myself up as any authority in this connection. I do suggest that, for all practical purposes, the union jack is the flag of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. We should recognize that fact. I do not know whether or not any other members have heard reports similar to those I have heard from people returning to Canada from the United Kingdom in recent weeks and months. I have had it reported to me that at least some people in the United Kingdom, when they read their newspapers, were rather disturbed by the fact that at this late date we Canadians apparently were trying to steal their flag. I have no way of knowing how widespread that sentiment may be in the United Kingdom. Apparently it has come as quite a surprise to at least some people in the United Kingdom to discover that Canada, who they thought had asserted her independence quite some time ago, still considered that, somehow or other, she was under their umbrella or tied to the apron strings of the mother country. I gather they were inclined to be just a bit resentful over the fact that we had taken action which led to the establishment-I think we all agree it was in
Canadian Flag
large part under the leadership that came from Canada-of the commonwealth of nations, as free, independent nations associated with one another, and yet apparently still desired to keep the United Kingdom flag rather than be willing to fly our own.
In support of the amendment, I may say that I feel there would be no quarrel on the part of anyone in the United Kingdom if we were to select what has been our flag since 1945 officially, with its union jack in the corner and our coat of arms, as a symbol of our association with the commonwealth. We may continue to use it freely in that sense. We have other associations in addition to those we have within the commonwealth. For an example, we are a member of NATO. Let me take a hypothetical situation. Let us suppose we wanted a flag which would be, in some measure, a symbol of our association in NATO. Would we think of proposing a resolution in this house that would make the stars and stripes the symbol of our association in NATO without asking our cousins in the United States whether or not they were agreeable to this idea? Perhaps the parallel is not exact. I would agree that perhaps the royal union flag has heraldic implications that the stars and stripes has not. Nevertheless, if you consider the logic of things in this day and age, I suggest that really there is not much practical difference between suddenly deciding we are going to adopt officially in this parliament, for our own purposes, the flag of the United Kingdom, and suddenly deciding we were going to adopt for certain purposes and usages, the flag of the United States of America.
I really have not much more to say, Mr. Speaker, except that I do feel when we look back on all that has taken place in this house and throughout the country since the question of a Canadian flag came to the fore, the difficulties that have been encountered, and if we take into account all the factors that are involved in terms of healing some of the wounds that were referred to last night, then it would be the part of wisdom for this-parliament to retain in a permanent and honoured place the red ensign that many Canadians have come to know and to love. Apart from any other considerations, apart from the fact that I find the symbolism of the Canadian red ensign very appropriate for our association in the commonwealth, I believe these considerations should not be lost from sight by members of this house in reaching a decision on the committee report which is now before us.

Canadian Flag
I appeal to hon. members opposite in particular to consider these things before they come to a decision. All of us in this house claim we have the right to vote freely and have been given the right to do so by our party leadership. We should consider all these elements before we decide to reject out of hand the amendment which is now before the house. My only real association with the red ensign in conjunction with the commonwealth was during the period I was in attendance at the commonwealth parliamentary conference in Kuala Lumpur some time ago. I must say that there are situations when we, as the senior member of the commonwealth, find that the position of our flag in the array of commonwealth flags is right next to that of the United Kingdom. This is a symbol which I feel most Canadians would accept equally well. It is in keeping with the traditions that have been built around this particular emblem which first had official recognition in this country. It is a symbol which I would hope would be more acceptable in the eyes of many people of French speaking ancestry than one which is purely and simply a symbol of the United Kingdom, a country which I honour and respect and to which I have a strong sense of emotional attachment that sometimes puzzles me because I have never been there. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I think here is an area in which we can move toward a unity of feeling and understanding, things which may be lost if we insist on implementing the report of the committee.
For these reasons I would appeal to other hon. members of the house to join with those of us who have already indicated our support for the amendment.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, I had no intention of speaking on a distinctive national flag for Canada. But I certainly intend to discuss the recommendation contained in the seventh report of the committee concerning the desire of the government to have a flag representing the agreement between Canada and the commonwealth.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso), who so ably dealt with the procedure adopted by the committee, showed how difficult it is for members who did not sit on the committee to understand the ramification of the votes. How much more difficult it must be for the Canadian people in general to follow the proce-

dural implications of all the votes that were taken.
As I set out on my few brief remarks this afternoon may I say to you, sir, that everything I have to say in a historical context, and every other context, relates to the amendment before the house and the desire of the government to have a flag representing Canada's co-equal position in the commonwealth.

Mr. Speaker, I always thought that it was not quite proper for a member to speak in too great details about the history of his own electoral riding in the House of Commons. But allow me to recall some historical facts concerning Brome-Missisquoi, the electoral riding I now represent in this house.
Some 75 years ago the population of Brome-Missisquoi was approximately 75 per cent English speaking and 25 per cent French speaking. Today, in 1964, the percentage is exactly the opposite: 75 per cent French speaking and 25 per cent English speaking.
Mr. Speaker, you can undoubtedly notice by my accent that English is my mother tongue, but today I have the honour of representing a dominantly French Canadian population in the House of Commons.


Auguste Choquette: Today your riding is 75 per cent Liberal and 25 per cent Conservative.


William Heward Grafftey: It is not true, and I am glad the hon. member for Lotbiniere made such a remark, because I am going to answer him in a few minutes. I am quite pleased- [Text]
-I think hon. members will soon realize why I am happy that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) made such an interjection because he thinks-

-because the government proposed a distinctive flag, that the Liberals will necessarily obtain votes in the next election in the province of Quebec. That is not necessarily so.


Auguste Choquette: We will get the Liberal vote, that's for sure.


William Heward Grafftey: We in Brome-Missisquoi understand the true historical fact that two great races founded the glory and the strength of Canada. Today this approach also includes many citizens who, since the time of confederation, have come to Canada to join

the two historic founding races in building a stronger and greater nation.
I know, as I begin my observations, that I am going to repeat myself but I am sure you, sir, will see that these keynote remarks, these introductory remarks I make, are definitely to be related to the amendment before the house and the government's desire to have a commonwealth flag. I cannot do it without referring to the historic background of my riding and to the present situation in it.
Although we are dealing with something that has national significance I think there are times when we can speak in some detail of our ridings, more especially when one speaks of Brome-Missisquoi where we truly understand, where the two great founding races live side by side in harmony and understanding, where we understand-and it is not an intellectual proposition-the positive attributes of unity in diversity are something deeply believed in and felt. That is why I found it very difficult to take the floor of the house and speak one way or the other during the debate on a distinctive national flag; but it will soon become apparent to the hon. member for Lotbiniere why I am on my feet now.
[Translation\
I have a good answer to the question put to me by my hon. friend a few minutes ago.

I feel, sir, that in relation to the problems of national unity and confederation, when we talk about the necessity for mutual understanding and bonne entente, and better understanding, we are not nearly positive enough in underlining the positive and glorious aspects of unity in diversity.
I think that in most organizations it is unfortunate that a 90 per cent area is the problem area and a 10 per cent area is the area of rich opportunity. This has been true in questions relating to national unity. Unfortunately we spend an inordinate amount of time on the 90 per cent problem area and typically ignore the 10 per cent area of pure opportunity. I hope before this debate is over, whether we are on amendments or subamendments, whether we are speaking of a commonwealth flag or a distinctive flag, I hope from now on in this house and outside it we will talk about the 10 per cent area of rich opportunity in relation to the problems of confederation and national unity.
Ten years ago I was speaking with one of my good friends in Montreal and I made remarks rather like those I am making in the house right now, and he said, "Oh, Heward,
Canadian Flag
how boring. Can't we take it for granted we are united and strong and go ahead and deal with the bread and butter economic issues that are really facing this nation?" "Well," I said, "I suppose you are right, we can." But I think today as we deal with this subject, whether it is a distinctive flag or a commonwealth flag, that we cannot take such a thing for granted. Especially in the House of Commons we must show real leadership and discuss positively subjects which lie in the area of national unity, federal-provincial relationship and confederation. Now that we have a distinctive Canadian flag I hope we shall get on to discuss the real, bread and butter economic issues.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) suggested in the course of his intervention, and I am glad he made it, that because the government had proposed what the Prime Minister described as a non-political flag, and because of what has happened in the house in the last 24 hours, the Liberals would be elected automatically in the province of Quebec. I would simply point out that in 1962 there were some who felt that because of the introduction of simultaneous translation services in this chamber, bilingual cheques and that sort of thing, the position of the Conservative party in Quebec might be helped. Well, I think the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Choquette) -

-Mr. Caouette and the Creditistes have certainly given proof to the contrary in 1962. [Text]
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that I am straying from the subject of the amendment to some extent. But speaking directly to the amendment and to the question of a flag representing our association with the commonwealth, we must concede, now, that there is no fleur-de-lis in the distinctive flag or the proposed commonwealth flag. I say this without any rancour whatsoever. I am not saying it is what I want and I am not saying it is what the people in my province want. Certainly, whether the choice, now, is to be the union jack or the red ensign there will be no fleur-de-lis in the proposed commonwealth flag.


An hon. Member:: It is in the red ensign.


William Heward Grafftey: It is in the red ensign but not, I think, in the sense we were considering during the original debate. I know that much of the Prime Minister's argument was technically correct-not all of it, by any means. But who in the world would suggest that it is

Canadian Flag
possible to explain technicalities from the Atlantic to the Pacific on an issue so emotionally charged as this? I am convinced of one thing. I am convinced that while we on this side of the house had a free vote, no matter what was written or said across this land, the same could not be said for members on the other side of this chamber.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I am sure he will permit the Chair to bring to his attention the rule that he cannot reflect on a vote of the house.


William Heward Grafftey: I was not speaking on a past vote. I was speaking of a vote on the particular amendment which is before us.
I know there will be laughter from the other side at what I am about to say. But had the party to which I belong formed the government-I cannot say when we would have brought a flag, or flags, before the house for approval, or even if we would have proceeded by bringing a flag or flags before the house at all-I am convinced of one thing: We would have brought in one distinctive flag for one united Canada. There would have been no doubt about it. I realize I am speaking very frankly and forthrightly. My party, collectively and as individuals, has often made mistakes in the province of Quebec. But we have never made the mistake of dividing and ruling, as members opposite have done. That is why I left the Liberal party. I left the Liberal party because of resolutions such as we have before the house today.
The Prime Minister can try to tell us this is not a two flag resolution. He can go into technicalities. He can squirm. But he knows as well as I do that members in his Quebec caucus have stated this will be interpreted in Quebec as a two flag resolution. A party which is sympathetic to an associate state, a party which has never said the same thing inside the province of Quebec as it has said outside that province, now pleads with us to keep this question of a commonwealth flag above politics. I am not scared of the Prime Minister. He is an honourable man who wishes to do everything possible to unite this country. What I am scared of are his lieutenants such as the hon. member for Lotbiniere, who think they can wave a flag and forget the economic issues and attempt to poison the minds of the people in the province of Quebec against the party to which I belong, telling them: Here is your flag; we are going to be elected automatically. No matter what

the Prime Minister says, this is a two flag resolution.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We can go for two weeks on this subject.


William Heward Grafftey: Like his right hon. predecessor, a great Canadian, Louis St. Laurent, a man I respect as I respect the present Prime Minister, a man who did much to unite and help this country, the present Prime Minister does not know what the old guard of the Liberal party is like in the province of Quebec. We have noted the utter surprise of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). He could not understand why his party is doing what it is doing. At the same time we notice this other attitude expressed by the members from the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why the government is following its present course. It is because the party opposite has never said the same thing in the province of Quebec as it has said outside that province. While the Prime Minister would like to keep this whole matter out of the political arena, through gross ineptitude people who wanted to vote for a distinctive Canadian flag were forced to do it by reason of closure and today we are forced to move into an area-


An hon. Member:: Would you answer a question?


William Heward Grafftey: I will answer later. On this side of the house we have always said we want a united Canada under one distinctive flag. But no matter what members opposite say, this proposal now before us will be looked upon in the province of Quebec as a two flag issue. Their colleagues from Quebec will soon tell us how it will be regarded in many sections of this country. No amount of technical explanation, no amount of weasel-ling in and out will explain that away.
Make sure of one thing. Members opposite have come up to me and said, jeeringly: "Heward, you cannot vote against report No. 6; think what would happen in Missisquoi county, which is mainly French speaking." Again, members have approached me and said in the same tone: "Heward, you cannot vote against report No. 7. Look what will happen in Brome county". Yet the Prime Minister says this is not a two flag resolution. Who is fooling whom? Who has done more than members opposite to divide this country?


Auguste Choquette: Try to make sense. You have just said the opposite thing. Make up your mind.


William Heward Grafftey: I want to make one thing very clear. Yesterday I made my position unequivocally clear both in English speaking and in French speaking Canada. Members of my party did not in all cases agree with me, but we were allowed to vote in such a way as to express our views. Since I was a college student I have always stood for one united Canada under a distinctive flag without a fleur-de-lis or union jack in it. I was allowed to vote that way. Were you allowed a free vote over there? Are you going to be allowed a free vote on this seventh report of the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Sure.


William Heward Grafftey: Not on your life. Through gross ineptitude you have plunged, like the Liberal party has always plunged, a delicate question of national unity, federal-provincial relations and confederation right into the heart of partisan politics. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of Canada's co-equal position with other members of the commonwealth in the commonwealth of nations. I am proud, as every member of this house is proud, to recognize the presence of the crown in Canada. Enough said. But when I voted yesterday for a distinctive Canadian flag, I voted in the name of all the citizens of Brome-Missisquoi, English speaking and French speaking; and we did not need this cynical approach that is being brought forward today, namely a two flag resolution.


John Ross Matheson: Let us hear about the amendment.


William Heward Grafftey: You will hear about the amendment. I say to hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, that no member is more responsible than the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) for the unhappy situation we are in right now.


John Ross Matheson: That is a generality.


William Heward Grafftey: It is a very important generality that the people of Canada are soon going to understand.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


William Heward Grafftey: I will answer the hon. members' question when I have finished, Mr. Speaker.


John Ross Matheson: A moment ago the hon. member said that the Prime Minister had been correct in some of the technical comments respecting a flag, although not in all. Perhaps, since he is generalizing, he will be
Canadian Flag
able to bear down and tell us where in any of his comments the Prime Minister was in error.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: That is not a proper question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Bigg) not to interrupt the hon. member for Leeds who has posed a question with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


William Heward Grafftey: I will answer questions at the end of my remarks, sir, which will be very soon. I would say that no matter what many people want to do in this vote regarding the union jack, whether they do not vote at all or vote for the amendment in favour of the red ensign, let it be quite clear that as far as I am concerned, no matter what we are doing now-and I know we cannot talk about past votes in the house-when I voted yesterday I voted in the name of every Canadian in my constituency, English and French speaking, for one distinctive flag, for one united Canada. If we are in the delicate position we have now reached in this debate it is because of a government and party that is flirting with the idea of an associate state and has unwittingly-that is the best we can say, unwittingly-sown the two state theory. Therefore it is only logical that Canadians are now becoming confused when they bring a two flag resolution before the House of Commons and present it to the Canadian people.
I say quite forthrightly and frankly that in my heart of hearts, no matter how I am going to vote-there is a paradox here and perhaps hon. members will think I am contradicting myself, but I am not-on this report, I will do everything in my power to explain inside and outside the province of Quebec that what we were handling was a one flag resolution, whereas because of the actions and the stupidity of this government it seemed to many Canadians that we were dealing with a two flag resolution proposed by a government that has never said the same thing in different parts of Canada to all Canadians. No matter how stupid at times we might have seemed, especially to members opposite, we have always said the same thing in every corner of Canada; we have always stood for one united Canada, for one distinctive flag no matter what it looked like.


Auguste Choquette: You want to unite Canada, but your party is divided.

Canadian Flag


William Heward Grafftey: Take the whips off your party and you will see how your people vote on this issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


William Heward Grafftey: I know some hon. members will say-and this may include some of the remarks I have made-that a great many sad things have been said during the debate on the flag, whether it has been on this resolution or the other; but the facts of political life in Canada are these. I was asked this on the radio the other day, namely about our being a national party when we had such a small representation in the province of Quebec. West of the lakehead the government has less members than we have in the province of Quebec. It is very difficult, in the classical sense of the word, to call the two old, traditional parties national parties. Let us both realize that fact on the floor of the House of Commons, act responsibly and recognize that we have not a strong mandate, on either side of the house, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Do you want to secede and join the United States?


William Heward Grafftey: I do not, and I do not think the hon. member does, either.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


James Edgar Walker: I wonder whether the hon. member would take the assurance of the government whip, as another hon. member of the house, that the whips are not on in this vote and that it is a totally free vote.


An hon. Member:: If so, it is the only one.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, let us make progress bit by bit. In this present debate it has been said time and time again that no matter how technically-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before six o'clock-


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


Auguste Choquette: I think we should hear from the hon. member whether or not he is in favour of the amendment. He has not said a word about it, so he is out of order.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, no matter how-


Auguste Choquette: Are you in favour-yes or no?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will display good manners and keep his seat, I will get to the point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will have an opportunity to do this at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned at six o'clock I was talking about my riding of Brome-Missisquoi, and I pointed out that most of the citizens of Brome were English speaking while most of my electors in Missisquoi were French speaking.
I also wish to point out that when I voted for a Canadian flag last night, I voted for a distinctive flag for a united Canada. And when I voted for a distinctive Canadian flag, I voted on behalf of my English speaking and French speaking fellow citizens in the riding of Brome-Missisquoi.
Concerning the seventh report of the flag committee, I must tell the members of the government that as the member for Brome-Missisquoi and speaking for all the voters of that riding, we do not need a flag for Brome and another for Missisquoi.

Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say that I intend to do everything possible during this debate, with a sense of responsibility, to make sure that every Canadian will recognize that, as far as those who support this party are concerned, this is a one flag resolution. Because of the actions of the present government there is a definite feeling among the people of this country that this is a two flag debate. That is the situation, whether we like it or not, in spite of the appeals for unity that have been made by members of this party to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
A number of Liberal members from the province of Quebec, as well as from other parts of Canada, have told me that the situation with which we are now faced is not indicative of a Quebec phenomenon but

rather of a Canadian phenomenon. I believe that a great number of people in this nation feel that the government, as the result of this motion for concurrence, is proposing two flags for Canada. As far as my constituency is concerned, the government is proposing one flag for Brome yet another for Missisquoi.
Hon. members perhaps will remind me that yesterday I voted in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag and I did so because I believe in one flag for one united Canada. Hon. members opposite do not like to hear this side of the debate, because it is in this area that they are going to find themselves in difficulty. No matter how many errors the party which I support has made inside and outside of this House of Commons during the flag debate, and no matter how many technicalities the right hon. Prime Minister discusses, we believe in one flag for one united Canada.
Just before we adjourned at six o'clock I explained that, because this is an emotionally-charged issue, we in this party have exercised a free vote, and we will continue to exercise a free vote in respect of each phase of this flag issue.
In reference to the amendment now before the house, I plead with members opposite to make sure that their whip is off when they vote. It is not good enough for them to say that the whip is off, yet stand as a group and vote as a group, because the people of this country cannot be fooled about this issue. Action of that kind on the part of Liberal members of parliament does not represent a free vote.
We in the Conservative party believe that no matter what distinctive flag is selected, it should be the only distinctive flag for Canada.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: Hon. members opposite try to smear the Conservative members representing Quebec constituencies on every emotional issue which comes before this house, but because of television, radio and fast communication, the people of Quebec have become informed and can no longer be fooled by this type of action. This belief enunciated by Liberal members has been exposed, and what has taken place during this debate has been brought to the forefront and the attention of the people of Quebec.
All the members in this chamber have heard the catcalls from across this house during the debate on this motion, and the preceding motion for concurrence. We are all aware that the Liberal members think that we are afraid to vote against these motions for concurrence because we know what will happen. The
Canadian Flag
Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) during this debate yelled across the floor, while I was participating in this debate, that I was afraid to vote against the motion for concurrence in the report of the committee. We know what she meant by that verbal ejaculation.
We know what the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) meant when he spoke on the flag issue, suggesting that French Canada would become completely Liberal. As an ex-Liberal from Quebec I can appreciate why the Liberal government is treating the flag issue in such a way. Because of my appreciation of that fact I left the Liberal party. The Liberal approach to the flag issue has been founded on the concept of one flag for French speaking Canada and one flag for English speaking Canada or, as related to my constituency, one flag for Brome and one flag for Missisquoi. This approach will no longer be effective because the Liberal party can no longer fool the people about this issue.
I am not speaking with the authority of my party but I know in my heart of hearts as I stand here that while we Conservatives may have a rough time in the province of Quebec we voted yesterday, no matter how we vote on this motion, in terms of thinking of one distinctive flag for one united Canada. We do this as Conservatives realizing that the melting pot theory is not applicable to the Canadian mosaic, and again members opposite, by paradox, may think I am plunging the whole issue into partisan politics. Sir, as a member from the province of Quebec I am not willing to stand here and listen to the pontifications of the leadership of the Liberal party in the House of Commons and then go back to the province of Quebec and face the villainous type of partisanship we are going to see on this kind of issue.
It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say in the House of Commons: "Let us keep this matter out of partisan politics". I suggest that he write a letter to some of his Quebec members telling them to do the same thing in the province of Quebec when this issue is over. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) has made the classic mistake of so many members of parliament on both sides of the house in relation to our province, a province that both of us have the honour to represent in the House of Commons. One would have thought he would have learned his lesson, but so many professional men in the province of Quebec feel that because they may be on the right side of emotional issues they can forget economic issues. The hon.

Canadian Flag
member for Lotbiniere said: We have got our distinctive flag now, and as the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has mentioned the fact that 75 per cent of the people of his riding are French speaking they must be 75 per cent Liberal today. That is false because today the people of my province recognize that the major issues are of an economic nature. I know it is bad for us to be on the wrong side of sentimental issues, but today 85 per cent of our farmers are living with net annual incomes of under $2,000 and 20 per cent of our urban families are subsisting in poverty and want.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should remind the hon. member that what we are dealing with at the moment is an amendment to the effect that the seventh report of the special committee be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to strike out of the recommendation the words "royal union flag, generally known as the union jack" and substitute therefor the words "Canadian red ensign". It may be that the hon. member's remarks are related to this subject but that is not apparent to the Chair. I would ask him to make an effort to relate his remarks to that particular subject.


William Heward Grafftey: I was out of order, Mr. Speaker, and I bow to your judgment. I only say it is pretty hard for a young member of parliament who has seen so much poverty to hear a member opposite say that he thinks he is going to get an automatic vote because he has produced a symbol in the form of a flag.
To get back to the proposition that we have a two flag issue, Mr. Speaker, I say it is not a two flag issue. It is a one flag issue, but because the government has unwittingly plunged both resolutions into the partisan arena, because they have engendered by their actions a certain sympathy with the associate state idea, because they have never said the same thing in Quebec as they have outside of the province, unless we are very careful as to how we handle this resolution many Canadians in and outside of the province of Quebec will be thinking that we are dealing with a two flag resolution. Many of the members opposite have told their leader that in and out of their caucus, and it is going to be interesting to see how they vote.
Having said that, I plead that we make progress bit by bit and tonight adopt this amendment. Let us adopt the amendment for the red ensign because no matter how the
[Mr. Grafftey.l
Prime Minister enters into technicalities, we all know that the union jack is the official flag of the United Kingdom. I would think that hon. members opposite in a spirit of give and take would like to show us there is a free vote over there by voting for this amendment, which makes good sense to me and I am sure to all members of the House of Commons. There must be give and take in this sort of thing. Because of the actions of the Liberals in and out of the house there is great danger no matter what we do here. No matter what we do it is possible that this resolution will be described as a two flag resolution, a flag for Brome and a flag for Missisquoi. Let us avoid this and let us do things step by step that will better the situation. If you are sincere you will show us the whips are off and you will show us that you are ready to vote for this amendment providing for the adoption of the red ensign to indicate our relationship with the commonwealth.
Members opposite know there is going to be much unnecessary confusion related to the fact that the union jack, while greatly respected in many parts of this country, is largely recognized as the flag of Great Britain, our great ally. Let us not have this unnecessary confusion. If you are not plunging the whole matter into partisan politics, why do you sit there and sneer and yell? Where is the give and take? If this matter has not been plunged into partisan politics why is there this inflexible line of this or nothing else? When you see many responsible members in the other parties supporting this amendment, surely you can see its good sense. Surely if the leadership of that party is listening to its backbenchers from Quebec and outside of the province of Quebec they will adopt this amendment immediately. I plead with the party opposite to do so right away. Otherwise there is great risk that because of their actions this will be interpreted as a two flag resolution.
Let us recognize the fact, as I said before six o'clock, that neither of the two traditional parties, the Liberals or the Conservatives, can truly call themselves national parties any more. I recognize that with our corporal's guard from Quebec we are no longer a national party in the great sense of the word, but with your corporal's guard from west of the lakehead neither are you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member although perhaps he just wanted to finish his sentence.


William Heward Grafftey: I would say that with their corporal's guard from west of the great lakes neither are the Liberals a national party. So let us treat this whole subject in a spirit of give and take. Let us end some of the sadder aspects of this debate, the things that have been said and done in and outside of the House of Commons. Let us show a spirit of give and take and be ready to vote for this amendment so that finally we can get down to dealing with economic issues such as the question of poverty which really mean something to most of the Canadian people.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the house my contribution to the debate will be a very short one. My participation this evening is motivated solely by the remarks of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). I may say that my interruption was a very spontaneous one. I have listened with a great deal of interest both before the supper hour and since eight o'clock to the remarks of the hon. member who represents that very historic constituency. Earlier in his remarks I sensed a certain degree of sincerity with which that hon. member has always spoken when discussing national unity, the flag and his wonderful constituency of Brome-Missisquoi.
I have listened with perhaps more than usual attention to the remarks of the hon. member because in many ways the constituency of Brome-Missisquoi and the constituency of Verdun are very similar. I think the hon. member would be the first to agree that we both represent wonderful constituencies in a wonderful province. Like the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi I represent French speaking Canadians and English speaking Canadians in great numbers. Like the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, as he said earlier today, my decision on how to vote on the flag was a very agonizing one as I struggled to reconcile the different factors and to come up with a vote which I thought was in the best interests of my province and all Canada. Despite the sincerity which I sensed in the remarks of the hon. member, I resented deeply any implication on his part that my vote then, and my vote in the future on this seventh report, will be motivated by anything other than my own desire to do what is best for my constituency and for my country.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Do you say that for the rest of your colleagues as well?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I can assure the hon. member-
Canadian Flag


An hon. Member:: What about yours?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Do not worry about mine; I will look after my own apples.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I can assure the hon. gentleman that I do not need the whip of this party or any other party to tell me how I am going to vote. I have one person to satisfy when it comes to voting, and that is myself. I believe, and I have always followed this belief, that if I do what I think is right, I am doing what is politically right. I repeat my resentment for every member of parliament, that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) should suggest that any member on this side of the house, be he from British Columbia, Newfoundland or Quebec, English speaking or French speaking, is motivated by any other reason than a sincere desire to do his best for his constituency.
I have listened to practically all the speeches. There is no one on that side of the house who can accuse me of once heckling a speaker, of once interrupting a speaker, because I have followed this flag debate on the premise that the issue was such a great one nobody would want to participate in the debate unless he were motivated by sincerity and was a man dedicated to the House of Commons. I say therefore to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that this speech could have been a great speech because it had all the ingredients that were necessary for a great speech if he could have learned to refrain from the partisan tone that he introduced.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; I am wondering if at this point the hon. member is not straying from the question at issue. I believe what he should be considering is not what the hon. member has said or what motivated him in his speech. I suggest that what he should be doing is submitting his own views on the question at hand.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member, whom I respect, is obviously proud of the fact, and with just reason, that he voted according to his conscience yesterday. I do not know of any member on this side of the house or in his own party that would find fault with his decision. In the final analysis, he made it in good faith and good conscience. I would ask all members of this house, when the amendment comes before us, to grant that same privilege so that nobody can be accused of vot-

Canadian Flag
ing in other than a sincere manner, or that the whip has told us to do this or that. I have as much right to vote for a new flag or for the union jack as the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). What makes the hon. member for York-Humber a hero because he votes against his party any more than the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is a hero when he votes against his?
I respect the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and I respect the hon. member for York-Humber, because I feel both of these people were motivated by the same reason. On at least four occasions the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has emphasized the fact he voted for the new flag. Then, he goes on to say he cannot possibly vote for the union jack; that is his privilege.


William Heward Grafftey: I did not say that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I believe the hon. member said for the two flag resolution; it is a question of semantics, I think. I say this in all sincerity that my vote for a new, distinctive flag and my vote for the union jack as a symbol of membership in the commonwealth are votes made out of sincere conviction. As a matter of fact, I believe that this action will finally restore this flag to a place of distinction in this country. What has been the role of the union jack since the red ensign has taken prominence? What, specifically, has it stood for other than some symbol of that particular country that was the mother country of so many of us? At least, by this action of parliament, if the motion passes, the union jack will once again have a proud place in our country, in our future events.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi made an issue of the fact that we will get confused with a new flag and a union jack. As a great Canadian, as the good Canadian I happen to know he is and also as a good Quebecker, I wonder what the hon. member might do this Saturday or next Saturday when he stands at the ceremony for opening a new road under the fleur-de-lis flag of Quebec? Does he turn his back on it or does he not recognize it for what it is, a symbol in the province of Quebec to be used on occasions where it cannot be confused with the red maple leaf or the union jack? The same thing happens to members of other provinces. The province of Quebec is not the only province with a provincial flag of its own. Other provinces have provincial flags. Certainly, they have a place in this country. There is no need for any confusion.

We will have occasions in Ontario, Newfoundland, Quebec and the other provinces, upon which the maple leaf, the union jack and the provincial flag are all displayed in a position of prominence. What amounts of intelligence is necessary to distinguish between them, to understand why they are there? So, Mr. Speaker, much as I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and his sincere sentiments toward the province I respect and love, I resent the fact he said that our party has spoken with two voices in that province. This, again, was an unfair remark when it comes to national unity. On four occasions in his remarks to the house the hon. member paraphrased the remarks of Brutus when he praised the Prime Minister, then accused him of having two voices, one for Quebec and one for the rest of the country.
I know the hon. member thinks very highly of the French. However, I ask him if he would get up in his riding this Saturday and read some of the things that have been said in the heat of battle in this house during the flag debate? Would he read the statements of one member that the symbol of French Canada is the red maple leaf, a statement which was based on a letter written in the 1800's? Of course he would not. He would be ashamed to do it and so would I. I am sure there are many good Canadians on your side of the house who stand and make an impassioned plea for a point in which they believe. I can forgive any speech in this House of Commons if it is made sincerely and it reflects a man's true feelings, and I include the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) as long as they are made with sincerity. This is his prerogative. If I vote sincerely for the resolution which will make the union jack a symbol of our membership in the commonwealth, I do not want the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi or any other to be imputing motives for my vote. I will have no problem in going back to my constituency, which resembles the constituency of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, and explaining to those people that there is but one flag, the new red maple leaf, and one symbol of our membership in the commonwealth of nations.
In conclusion I would like to say on behalf of the French speaking members, not only on this side but on that side, that many of us thought the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) was a classic in tolerance and I sense it made a lot of us a little bit ashamed,

perhaps because it was in complete contrast to much of the bitterness and hate that has permeated this house for too long.
I know the French speaking Canadians Of my own party are free to vote as they wish, and because of their cultural and other traditions, because of the fact they are the first to admit they do not have the strong ties with the British isles that we do, if they are willing to vote for the union jack let nobody here interpret it as an effort of the whip, as an effort of party discipline, but rather as a symbol of these French speaking Canadians willing to subjugate their natural desire for what they think is in the best interests of Canada.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. I appreciate his comments and the sincerity with which he delivered his address, but I would like to ask him if he has read the speeches that were made in this house against the prime minister of Canada when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister, speeches by members who now sit on the treasury benches? Did he ever listen to the C.B.C. commentators in the province of Quebec in those days when they were engaged in a very definite program? I do not say this in any way validates anything that has happened here this session, but I think he should bear those things in mind.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This is a very objective question from the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) for whom most members have a great deal of affection. It is also an honest question, but I think it radiates what is wrong with this house, the constant references to the abuses in the past, the constant references to what happened in 1954, 1956 and 1958, and what one member said about another member's prime minister. This is precisely the type of sickness that has permeated this place.
This is the type of thing which makes it practically impossible to sit down and discuss anything objectively. I have no more sympathy with members on this side who would attack the character of anybody on that side than I have with members on the opposite side who have constantly to interpet as racism everything French speaking members do on this side.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I appreciate that and I agree with the hon. member, but I ask him where then does he place the blame?
20220-706i
Canadian Flag


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am afraid the hon. member will have to repeat his question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I cannot repeat the words exactly. I appreciate the sincerity of the remarks made by the hon. member in answering me, but I ask him where then does he place the blame?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think, Mr. Speaker, I must not have clarified myself adequately. I am not interested in placing the blame. I am interested in, from today on, getting rid of the insults, fancied insults and constant references to what members said about other members six, 18 and 20 years ago.
It amazes me how people can reach back into their memories and remember some insult thrown at the Leader of the Opposition or, as in this case, at the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) on something that happened 14 or 15 years ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The comments of the hon. member are very interesting. The question was also very interesting but I am sure both hon. members would agree they are a bit beyond the scope of the amendment before the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to support the red maple leaf flag, even though I would have preferred a green maple leaf. But, as regards the amendment now before the house and also the question of flying the union jack in certain circumstances to show our allegiance to the crown and our commonwealth association, well, I find it unacceptable.
I can say right now that I shall not support the union jack motion, because it is not the flag of the commonwealth but that of the United Kingdom and its colonies. To recognize in our statutes the union jack as one of our own flags, even if only in certain circumstances, constitutes an encroachment, it seems to me, upon our Canadian sovereignty, inasmuch as the union jack is the flag of the United Kingdom and its colonies. Canada has been an adult and sovereign country since the Statute of Westminster. I find it unacceptable that we should support the motion respecting the union jack.
As for the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), I shall refrain from voting, and for the following reason: a vote against this amendment means a vote in favour of the union jack, whereas a vote in favour of the

Canadian Flag
amendment does not mean a vote against the union jack, but in favour of maintaining the red ensign. Therefore, I would rather abstain from voting.
Mr. Speaker, as I have already mentioned, the government is claiming our association with the commonwealth in order to have us accept the union jack. Why does the government not propose also the tricolour, the French flag, since France played a leading part in Canada when our country was first discovered.
The reasons invoked by the government in support of the union jack could also apply in favour of the tricolour because, for an important part of our people, it carries the same meaning as the union jack does for another section of the Canadian people.
I do not believe that it is sensible for a sovereign country like Canada to ask the representatives of its people to vote in favour of the union jack and to even have in its statutes two flags, one bearing a maple leaf, and the other one which could be flown under certain circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, the newspapers of the province of Quebec, together with those of the rest of the country, have criticized this formula of two flags proposed by the government. Unfortunately the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) is absent tonight, although he was here this afternoon. Here is what I read in the newspaper La Tribune:
M.P. Jean-Luc Pepin does not like the idea of having two flags.
The federal M.P. for Drummond-Arthabaska, Mr Jean-Luc Pepin, stated yesterday about the legislation dealing with a distinctive Canadian flag that; as the matter now stands, he did not like much the section providing that the union jack can still be flown to represent Canada's allegiance to the British crown. "I do not like it", he said.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, in order to be fair to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, would the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm read the other paragraphs of the article in question, because I think the heading possibly does not suggest exactly what, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska stated? In all fairness to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, would the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm read into the record the other four paragraphs in that article?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker, if the house has no objection. They read as follows:
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated however that he was leaving it up to the Prime Minister of the country who would clarify the matter sometime this week.
The opposition is taking advantage of this.
The opposition is taking advantage of the existing confusion, in the opinion of Mr. Pepin, to strongly oppose the proposal.
Now, according to Mr. Pepin, it is entirely false to suggest that two official national flags and anthems are being proposed.
The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska said that he found it more acceptable to recognize two anthems. But there again, he said, only one will be national: "O Canada". He said that the "God Save the Queen" would be a royal anthem, and it would be nice if we were to sing it to Her Majesty when she pays us a visit.
Mr. Speaker, since I do not want to take up too much of the time of the house, I shall not go on reading this article. But all the same, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska said he did not like the two flag proposal.
I feel that if the house, in compliance with the Prime Minister's wish, adopts the union jack, even on certain conditions this will promote the separatist movement in the province of Quebec.
By adopting two flags, even though one of them is to be adopted on certain conditions, the government recognizes two Canadas and two nations.


Albert Béchard: It is not two flags, but only one.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have here an article by Mr. Yves Michaud, dated May 20, 1964.
Mr. Michaud, who is a highly respected Liberal, finds it abnormal that the government-


Auguste Choquette: He is not a Liberal in Ottawa, but in Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is true, Mr. Speaker, that since the break between the federal and provincial organizations, that Mr. Michaud may be a Liberal in Quebec but not in Ottawa. Then if he is no longer a Liberal in Ottawa, I pay him my respects.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Certainly, he is not a Conservative.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the following remarks appeared in La Presse of Saturday, May 30, 1964;
The Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Montreal gave a cold shoulder to this proposal for two flags. Those two flags mean two nations, two different

racial groups, and they will further the gap between the English and French speaking Canadians.
This Canadian flag is decidedly presented too late.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the government is making a monumental error in asking the house to vote in favour of the union jack which cannot be Canada's flag, even under certain conditions, which is not the commonwealth flag but solely the flag of the United Kingdom and its colonies.
Mr. Speaker, if Her Majesty the Queen comes to Canada in the future, we can then be polite and fly on parliament hill Her Majesty's flag.
On the other hand, if the President of the United States makes an official visit to Canada, there is no need to adopt a bill and to include certain conditions in our statutes, in order to fly the American flag. We do not need that. If the President of the United States comes to Canada we shall have the courtesy to fly the American flag. The same thing could apply to all sovereigns and prime ministers of other countries.
Once again, I think this is a mistake from the standpoint of national unity.
The government will widen the gap between French speaking and English speaking Canadians. It seems to me that, the unrest being what it is at present, the government should withdraw its measure for the adoption of the union jack, so that this flag will not be approved by the house.
I would very much like to have the opinion of the French speaking members from Quebec to know what they think. Let them tell us how they will vote when the question is put.
Personally, as I said, I will vote against adopting the union jack, not because I have no respect for this flag, but because, to my mind it is a foreign flag.
As far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton is concerned, while respecting the position of the hon. member, I shall abstain from voting for the reasons I mentioned earlier.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Certainly.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm aware that the government members from Quebec will have the courage to vote on the amendment as well as on the main motion, instead of abstaining?
Canadian Flag
Is the hon. member aware that we intend to do that?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to repeat his question, because I did not hear him.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member whether he was aware that the government members from the province of Quebec intended to vote both on the amendment and on the main motion and that consequently, they were brave enough not to abstain from voting, as the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm intends to do? Is he aware of that?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that if he votes for the union jack, he does so for the sake of unity within his party, not because of any real feeling for the union jack.
Moreover, I want to tell him that we shall certainly not vote this week, since the debate will go on for some time, until probably after the Christmas holidays, if we have any.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a supplementary question?
Is he aware of the fact that we shall not be cowardly enough to abstain from voting?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That remark by the hon. member for Lotbiniere was entirely uncalled for.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the word the hon. member for Lotbiniere just uttered is against the rules and, consequently I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that word.


Gilles Grégoire: Withdraw.


Albert Béchard: That is quite right.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Speaker, following the question raised by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Lotbiniere used unparliamentary language. He has no right to impute motives to anybody in this house. In fact, we did not impute any to him when he refused to vote on the education bill. I believe that the hon. member for Lotbiniere should have the decency and courage to withdraw his words and not impute motives to anybody in this house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. members who now take part in this exchange of views that perhaps the

Canadian Flag
difficulty started, in my opinion, when the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm, in a certain way, imputed motives to hon. members on the other side of the house, with respect to the way in which they might vote during this debate.
I take the liberty of suggesting to the hon. members that it would perhaps be proper to forget the remarks which have been made and, once more, I want to mention that in my opinion, the words of the hon. member for Lotbiniere are uncalled for.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I just want to say that I have always been polite toward all hon. members, including the hon. member for Lotbiniere. Moreover, if that is the kind of co-operation that they want to show during this debate, I want to tell the government that this debate could go on for at least a month.


Auguste Choquette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to Beauchesne, threats are positively prohibited.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member rose on a question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: I admit, in all fairness to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, that I used a somewhat virulent expression. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, what I meant was that when the time comes to vote on the amendment before us and on the resolution concerning the union jack as a symbol of our allegiance to the crown and our participation in the commonwealth, instead of abstaining, we shall have enough courage to express our views.
On the same question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege in the statement made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
In my opinion, if an hon. member is entitled to rise on a question of privilege, it is the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, and I know that my hon. friend will accept the explanations of his colleague for Lotbiniere.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Just a word. His explanations are rather clumsy, but let it go.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure many of us must envy the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who says he has no difficulty and will have the courage to vote on this ques-
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.)
tion. I am sure we are all aware of that old expression, "Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread". Those of us who have some conception of the depth of feeling and compassion in the nation and how important these questions are to so many people who are, rather like myself, perhaps just a little puzzled as to why this nation needs two flags, are just a little hesitant about how we should vote on this question. The question in my mind is not clear. Because the hon. member may think that is because there is such a limitation on my thinking power I will reserve my right to the opinion that he who cannot even see the difficulties is not likely to give us much valuable advice on how to handle them.
I did think the remarks of the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) were worthy of some comment and note, and they do highlight what I think is the most important aspect of this matter that we can discuss; that is, the mental attitude of the members, our state of mind when we consider this question. Certainly much has been said by the hon. member for Verdun about the sincerity of members taking part in this debate and he made much of that point. We all know that there can be very sincere mistakes, but there can be a lack of understanding or a willingness to take a stand on so few facts that it is difficult to comprehend that it can reasonably be called honest. I think many of us have varying standards by which we feel that we must acquaint ourselves with the problems involved in a question before we can really call ourselves sincere when we venture an opinion.
In my view, while I do not want to make this just an exercise in semantics, sincerity means more than a mere belief, because of ignorance, in a certain thing and standing in this house and saying it. Certainly sincerity calls for the responsibility of knowledge, for acquainting oneself with the facts as well as trying to give honestly the opinion one has formed. I may be just a little bitter or perhaps a little suspicious, or perhaps I have learned a lot from watching the Liberal party over the years; but when the hon. member for Verdun says he does not think anyone in this house would want to get up and talk about the flag unless he was absolutely sincere I think he perhaps pinpointed for us the reason why so few Liberals took part in the flag debate. I suggest this does not exactly go along with his comment that while he may have been speaking for himself, it was not because the whip was on. I suggest that

if he is asking us to consider as worth while his opinion that all members of the Liberal party are like himself in that regard, then he is indeed naive. I have seen nothing to indicate, in the actions of the government supporters, that there was anything approaching what I would call sincerity with regard to this problem.
Certainly anyone in this house who listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he said what this flag was supposed to stand for, the unity it was supposed to bring to the nation, why the flag had to be distinctive, and then looked at the same time at the order paper and the resolution which is before us to bring in a second flag, can only come to the conclusion-this is what it indicates to my mind, at least-that this is an admission on the part of the Prime Minister that the flag adopted by this house last night is very hollow when it comes to symbolism.
1 suggest to the Liberal members of this house that they will have the same task as the rest of us, if we are to have a new flag that must be honoured and accepted. I ask seriously the question: When there is before us this present resolution, which cannot signify anything but a complete failure of the flag that was adopted last night to be symbolic, how are we going to sell last night's flag? I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am very perturbed at the question now facing us with regard to a second flag, particularly since we now have an amendment that the red ensign be substituted for the union jack if we are to have a second flag. I am aware of the depth of feeling and attachment to the red ensign of so many Canadians. I am sure every member in this house knows that there is a good percentage of the population of this country who as long as they live will neither forgive nor forget the tearing down of that banner to which they have become so attached. If I thought for a little while that perhaps the transition period while older people get older, young ones grow up and the attachment to the red ensign fades and those people gradually die out, so that a decade or two or a generation or two from now all that feeling may have faded away and the new flag will be accepted as symbolic of everything that the two flags are now supposed to stand for, I suppose I should feel a little better about it. But I cannot see how we hope to generate that feeling toward the new flag, if it is really to become the flag of this country, when we find it necessary to have a second flag flying when we want to really express something.
Canadian Flag
How can we build up this flag and say that the flag adopted in this house last night is a Canadian flag, if we are going to start at the outset by saying that it does not stand for anything and we must have another flag to fly when we want to express ourselves as Canadians? It becomes even more incomprehensible to me, Mr. Speaker, when I note that they want to have the union jack, not the red ensign, as Canada's second flag. These are the people who have put so much emphasis on the word distinctive and have said they want to fly a distinctive flag on special occasions. They have now put forward the union jack in place of the red ensign, which has signified Canada for 100 years, which is the only flag that is really distinctive of Canada today.
Meeting the arguments of my hon. friends opposite, who say they find on the red ensign the symbolism of the union jack repulsive and have rejected it because they have taken it as a symbol of colonialism and it has some unhappy memories connected with it, surely they are not going to suggest that the union jack does not have those same objections. As well as that, the union jack does have the disadvantage that it could not by any stretch of the imagination be called distinctive. I am really seriously interested in seeing some member on the government side get up and straighten out my thinking on this question or explain their own, because certainly on the record so far there is no logical explanation for this proposal.
This brings me back to where I started in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, namely to the question of sincerity. The hon. member for Verdun may be very sincere in his remarks on this question. Again I say that if he is sincere about himself, I can accept that; but when he asks us to accept his opinion of the rest of his party I find it just a bit difficult to swallow.
Most of us on this side of the house are convinced that there is only one reason why the union jack is being presented to this house by this report of the committee. That reason is that Joey has said: Give us the union jack or else. That statement does not seem to surprise or upset many of the members on the other side of this house. Perhaps that is because they sit in their places obeying the party whip slavishly on all scores.
On many occasions it has been embarrassing to me that the members in this house have shown such little unanimity. Perhaps I envy the members of the Liberal party because of the effect their party whip has on

Canadian Flag
them. He seems to be able to drive them like a flock of sheep in any direction he wishes them to go. On the other hand, perhaps it is better to be a member of this party where the men are men and not trained seals.
In seriously considering the flag issue we must also think of the state of mind of the members of the Liberal party. I have attempted to understand their feelings. I have listened to the remarks made by hon. members opposite in an attempt to figure out what is taking place. Many times in this chamber the kind of remark made by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) has been repeated. He has invited us to forget all about our feelings on the matter of this flag, has suggested that we begin again without recrimination and leave politics out of the question. Every time the Grit party is successful in achieving something by its dirty tricks, the members of that party immediately begin talking to us in that manner. Last night they voted in favour of the sixth resolution of the committee, and by their remarks and attitudes have indicated to us that the Liberal whip managed to get to them, lining up their vote. Yet today-and he did not even wait until today-their leader played the cheapest trick I have ever seen played in this house. Even last night he said, vote with us now. That is a most contemptible performance on the part of a prime minister, and I suggest to the members on that side of the house that if they wish to consider the flag issue on a level above politics, let them first stop those dirty, Grit, political tricks. Put an end to their purely political lines of approach, and do away with all their pious platitudes. Let them depart from the level of hyprocisy we have observed on that side of the house month after month.
The flag issue is a serious one, and I suggest that members on the other side of the house should have some regard for the welfare of this country. Once they have accomplished their purposes in adopting the flag proposed by the sixth resolution of the committee as the national flag of Canada, by dirty political methods, let them now for God's sake refrain from political trickery in respect of the union jack. Is it necessary that they continue to divide this country, and to continue with their Grit tactics which are based on the concept of divide and rule?
While I realize that the government must satisfy Joey's desire on the flag question, I would ask members on that side of the house how far they intend to go with their Grit political methods. How much consideration

do those members have for that political party in preference to the general welfare of this nation? My suggestion at this time is that if any member on that side of the house wishes the flag, voted upon early this morning, to become revered as a national symbol, standing for the unity of this country, he must stop now in his attempt to adopt a second flag. Two flags can only mean two sections of this country, and that is one sure way of continuing the division of this nation. Surely a thinking person in this country, even a member of the Liberal party, will realize that the manner by which the flag issue has been introduced to parliament can do nothing but add to any division which exists in this nation.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the members on that side of the house wish to have something of significance on a flag which is represented by the red ensign, as a result of more than 100 years of usage in this country they should give the people of this country a fighting chance to adopt such a flag. I implore them not to push the union jack on the people of Canada as an added reminder that even in the Liberal party the members do not believe that their flag is symbolic of this nation. They must be aware of the fact that the flag they have chosen is representative of pressure from Quebec and from Joey Smallwood, and that the maple leaf in the middle stands for what is left of the country. They must be aware that the flag indicates their belief that this nation is treated by the Liberals as a club. There is symbolism in that flag they have chosen, and it is this: The bars on each end separated by the big red maple leaf represent the two parts of the country divided by the Liberal party.
I am not sure whether I should vote for our amendment, but I know that I feel that, if we must have a second flag, it should be the red ensign rather than the union jack. I am unable to comprehend how any hon. member of this house can come to any other conclusion. As I have said, over the months I have come to understand some of the attitudes expressed in opposition to the red ensign, but it has been my feeling in that understanding that the opposition was directed more toward the union jack than the red ensign. If we are going to have a second flag, the flag suggested by the government is in fact that part of the red ensign which is most objectionable, and that part which many people have felt should be replaced. I think that objection was the basis of the move by the government to introducing the new one red maple leaf or Canadian distinctive flag to parliament; That being so I cannot understand government members who

support the union jack rather than the red ensign. If those members who object to our commonwealth ties and our allegiance to the Queen are honest in their feelings that we should have a second flag for Canada, surely they must realize that it is the union jack which has been associated with colonialism. Of the two flags, the one which symbolizes colonialism, I suggest, is the union jack.
Mr. Speaker, I should be very pleased if some hon. members opposite, particularly those representing French Canadian constituencies, would enlighten me as to some of my difficulties. I should like some hon. members of the Creditiste party, who are so determined to rid the country of the union jack, to explain their approach to this flag question. If we must have a second flag, I have no hesitation in voting for the Canadian red ensign in preference to the union jack, and I shall certainly vote in favour of the amendment. However, I am afraid that the amendment might carry, in which event I would have voted for a second flag for Canada which I think is silly.
I should like to understand one thing about the way the flag committee worked. I realize how the Liberal members tried to mislead the committee by proposing a vote on the question as to whether the committee preferred the three maple leaf design to the one maple leaf design. Following that vote the Liberal members of that party were quick to suggest that the vote had been unanimous in favour of the one maple leaf design, but that is not a true picture. I suggest that a vote on the motion and amendment before us now is similar to that vote. Most of us have some difficulty in this regard. I think an honest member on the government side, who has seriously thought about the flag issue in relation to the events of the past several days, would vote for the red ensign in preference to the union jack as the second flag for Canada. I had sort of hoped that both resolutions would be withdrawn completely. I really think that if there is hope of the flag we adopted yesterday becoming what it must, for the good of this nation we must defeat this resolution completely, and I hope we do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take any part in the debate and I am not really going to take any part at all. However, I saw a television news broadcast at a quarter to seven on CJOH and, having seen it, I took the trouble to telephone the station to tell them that they had made a terrible 20220-707
Canadian Flag
error. I told them I thought they had time to correct it but they did not bother correcting it. I think it should be corrected in fairness to my parliamentary secretary and to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard). The story as I heard it, and I listened very carefully, was that my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin), had undertaken to second and indeed had seconded this motion and then had withdrawn and in his place had been substituted Mr. Albert Bechard from Newfoundland.
Sir, that was either a piece of the grossest kind of carelessness on the part of Mr. Sturs-berg or it was a piece of deliberate malice. I do not know which, but having heard a good many of Mr. Stursberg's sneering and careless comments over the years I say that hon. members can take their choice. In my opinion these news broadcasts are the worst in this country and the most biased on the air. When the hon. member for Bonaventure, the chairman of our Quebec caucus, was willing and anxious and eager and accepted yesterday the seconding of this motion it seems to me it is singularly and terribly unfair to have that misrepresented on television.


Mr. Aiken:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I was about to rise at this moment. I think the minister had a point of privilege to raise which I thought might have been raised by the hon. member for Bonaventure. However, I think that the minister has said sufficient to explain the point of privilege which might have been raised more particularly by the hon. member for Bonaventure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was not raising a question of privilege. I believe that I, like other hon. members, have the right to speak in the debate and I was speaking in the debate. I was referring to the fact that one element of that debate has been grossly misrepresented in a television news broadcast.
I say, sir, that we on this side of the house are proud of the unity of our party. We are proud of the fact that whether our members are English speaking or French speaking they have stood together and have voted together for national unity in marked contrast to the display we have seen on the other side of the house in the official opposition. I am proud of the hon. member for Bonaventure and I am also proud that when he was

Canadian Flag
delayed for a few minutes in getting into the house my parliamentary secretary was willing as a French speaking Canadian to get up and second the motion to make the union jack the symbol of our allegiance to the crown and our membership in the commonwealth.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I think we have been led to believe that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill) is not an admirer of Mr. Stursberg. I would say that in this as in other things I do not share his point of view. It is not for us here to discuss Mr. Stursberg, but he does happen to be a man who has a very high reputation not only in Canada but abroad as a highly qualified student, scholar and commentator.
It is interesting that in this country of ours, which people sometimes say is dull and lacklustre, we have spent so much time on a flag. I suppose no country in the world has ever discussed a flag for as long as we have been discussing the question and now to add to the infinite variety we are beginning a discussion on two flags. Who says that Canada is not an interesting and different country?
Yesterday it was a new flag; today it is an old one. I think that the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) has through his amendment sought to improve a situation which was made far from glorious by the action of the committee, as indeed by the action of the government earlier in its two flag resolution. There has been some reference made to the flag which was discussed previously, a matter on which I made one speech, and I expect this speech to be my last on this one. I am not now, Mr. Speaker, nor have I ever been one of those who are so adamant against the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag without the symbolic representation of any other country. Had we on this troubled occasion had a distinctive flag introduced in an appropriate way which would not have torn and disturbed our country and which was a flag of interest and of beauty, I would have had no hesitation in supporting it. Therefore when I endorse the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton I am not waging any rearguard action on behalf of the Canadian red ensign.
I think the hon. member has given a big assist toward resolving the situation in which we found ourselves by reason of the introduction of that first embarrassing, unhistoric and almost ludicrous exercises in dual flagdom. There are many reasons why it is difficult to support the committee's seventh report as it

now stands. In one case there is some uncertainty as to the use of the royal union flag, the union jack. We are not clear when it would be used. On a visit of the sovereign the royal Canadian standard would be flown. On a visit of the prime minister of another commonwealth state it would be highly questionable whether the union jack would be flown because that individual would not be a head of state but a head of government. Indeed, if any flag were flown would it not be the flag of that particular commonwealth country?
As some of my colleagues have mentioned earlier today, it seems that this second flag diminishes the role and the symbolic value of the national flag. One might ask: Are there any occasions on which Canada is not a member of the commonwealth? Are there any occasions when Canadians do not bear allegiance to the crown? Therefore you have the problem of flying a flag on given occasions to demonstrate certain facets and facts of our national life which are in existence at all times. This is one of the problems that troubles me.
To go further with regard to the matter of the symbolic representation of flags, a flag should reflect, reveal and symbolize Canada in all its facets, international and otherwise, The flag of Canada should demonstrate that we are a member of the commonwealth, of NATO and of the United Nations. A meaningful flag should demonstrate all the aspects of Canada and all the things for which it stands in the great international world. It stands for great things in that world, and we can and should be proud of it.
We have before us the matter of a second flag, and we must take some action upon it. We must vote. However, the suggestion that such a flag be the union jack is a most regrettable and improper suggestion. It is a presumption upon the United Kingdom, a great and friendly country. It is a symbolic denial of Canadian history and the growth that has been made in this country from colony to nation. I do not ever suggest that one political party has a monopoly on virtue or has uniquely contributed to the development of this country. However, the thing that makes me proudest of the party to which I belong is that all down through the years it has been a great commonwealth party, and within that commonwealth has been the great champion of freedom and independence for this country. I ask why the flag of the United Kingdom should be chosen for commonwealth representation? Why

should it not be the flag of Australia, or any other commonwealth state?
Through the efforts of the great Sir Robert Borden, and his efforts will be admitted by everyone, we put into action the dream of a commonwealth of autonomous communities, in no way subordinate one to another. The United Kingdom has been a great and friendly power, an ally, a country which has brought freedom to many parts of the world. It does not, however, hold any position of prominence in the commonwealth of nations. I think it is a disservice to history to suggest that this country, the United Kingdom, has a role in the commonwealth greater, juridically, constitutionally or otherwise, than other commonwealth states including our own. This is a backward step. I do not suppose it was a deliberate step toward colonialism. It reminds me so much of Mackenzie King's suggestion that the British government should intervene in 1926, just shortly before he went all over the country on the phony constitutional issue.
Where in the seventh report of this committee do we remember the work of Borden, do we remember the great commonwealth conferences in which Canada took the lead, do we remember Meighen, do we remember the Statute of Westminster, do we recall that throughout the years this country led the way within the commonwealth and, as the senior dominion, was the champion of freedom within the commonwealth in so many ways. This commonwealth is one of the greatest political institutions of modern time. If we are to have this second flag, Mr. Speaker, let it be one which has something unique in its representation of Canada's role in the commonwealth, a role of which we can be very proud. Someone said earlier today that we used only the union jack in this country until 1945. This was not the case. The ensign was used in this country long before 1945. My colleague from Calgary North (Mr. Hark-ness), during his participation in the earlier debate, showed a poster used by Sir John A. Macdonald in 1891. The slogan then was, "The old flag, the old policy and the old leader." The flag was not the union jack, it was the red ensign in 1891. The ensign signifies not subservience, not colonialism, but it signifies independence and it signifies monarchy. It signifies, too, that the monarchy is a Canadian institution. Monarchy is not confined to the United Kingdom. When the Queen is in this realm, she is the Queen of Canada.
Canadian Flag
We have developed a unique and wonderful country here in the new world, retaining the values of the old and I hope the virtues of the old, too. If we must have our second flag, let us try to retain something which symbolizes Canada in the commonwealth.
Perhaps a more practical point, Mr. Speaker, we can predict that regardless of what the other place does in respect of the red maple leaf flag, millions of Canadians will continue to fly the Canadian red ensign for many years. Why not let the practice of these Canadians be given some official status? Do not let us in these difficult times, times which have torn a nation and wrecked parliament, exacerbate the difficulties by asking Canadians to turn in their red ensigns and buy red maple leaf flags and buy the flag of the United Kingdom at the same time. The flag of the United Kingdom is not the flag of Canada. I think it is presumptuous of us to be passing legislation relative to the flag of another great country.
If we put ourselves in a situation where, on occasions, we officially raise to the top of the flagstaff all over Canada for Canadian purposes a union jack, we have just retraced history to those days when we were a colony of Great Britain. Great Britain was a great mother country but this land, Canada, was not without its difficulties in relation to London. The stories of some of our statesmen indicate, I think, that they had to press vigorously for the kind of independence to which we were entitled. It is a meaningless and regrettable thing, after all these years, after the ensign had been sanctioned by custom and then certified by law, after the passage of years and generations, that we should move back to the flag which flew over us in colonial days. If this is to be something meaningful, this second flag, our other face to the outside world or perhaps only to the commonwealth, I hope that the government, which has in so many things been able to change its decisions and alter its directions, will accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming). As a Canadian who loves the commonwealth and admires Britain, but who is a Canadian nationalist first before being a lover of Britain, I would not want to have to vote against this report incorporating, for Canadian purposes, the flag of another country. I do not think this is an exercise any of us would wish to engage in, and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), in the wisdom and good judgment which he always brings to public matters, has provided an

Canadian Flag
opportunity for unanimity on this matter at least.
Heaven knows, we have had enough trouble over the first flag. Let us be sensible about the second. Let us underscore our history a bit. Let us not do that which those in future generations will consider a bit ridiculous and wonder how the champions of independence within the commonwealth should, in 1964 or 1965, suddenly decide to go back to a flag of their colonial past, to take from one of the members of the commonwealth its flag and make it, for peculiar and limited occasions, our flag.
This thing is going to be difficult to rationalize. I do not know who suggested it. I have not the slightest idea who has the power in the Liberal party. I do not particularly care, but I have an idea that it might be from a part of the country that has not had the long tradition of dominion development that Canada as a whole has had.
I do not want to speak with partisanship but I say this is a great mistake. It is a backward step. It is one which will embarrass many of us today and the whole country tomorrow. I would commend to the house and the government the sensible, soundly historically based amendment of my colleague from Victoria-Carleton.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering the motion for concurrence in the seventh report of the special committee on the Canadian flag.
The sixth report of that committee dealt with a distinctive national flag which was adopted last night. Tonight, we are asked to adopt a second Canadian flag. We are told that it is not a second flag, but it is stated, as reported in Votes and Proceedings of October 29 last, that it will be flown as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth of nations.
As stated on page 834 of Votes and Proceedings, that flag may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth of nations and its allegiance to the crown.
Mr. Speaker, I looked up the word "adhesion" in the dictionary. I have the Larousse dictionary which is well known for its definitions of terms, and here is how the word "adhesion" is defined:
"Contrat d'adhcsinn": A contract where all the terms are set out in advance by one of the contracting parties without the other parties having any say in the matter.

Therefore, membership in the commonwealth, as stated in the report of the committee, would mean entering into a contract with another country where the contract would stipulate in advance all the terms on which we, who are becoming a member, would have nothing to say.
That is the wording used by the committee in its seventh report. And as I pointed out, that is recorded on page 834 of Votes and Proceedings of October 29 last.
Mr. Speaker, I protest against the concurrence in this report precisely because of the terms used concerning our membership. In fact, if we did approve, it would mean that we accept all the terms laid down in advance by one of the parties without the other having an opportunity to discuss them.
To this, Mr. Speaker, we do not agree, we do not accept to join the commonwealth without having an opportunity to discuss the terms of our membership. Which contracting party will lay down their terms in advance and which party will not have an opportunity to discuss them and will simply have to accept them?
Those terms are prescribed to us while we cannot discuss them. And note that this is specified in the definition found in the Larousse dictionary which is universally recognized as the French language dictionary.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept the wording of the seventh report and, once again, I ask which contracting party will lay down its terms in advance and which contracting party will have to accept them without discussion? There are two contracting parties: Canada is one and we would mark our membership in the commonwealth of British nations by adopting the union jack which is England's flag. At first sight, we must conclude that it is England that would lay down her terms in advance while we would not have an opportunity to discuss them.
This is textually recorded in the seventh report of the special flag committee and it is the definition of the word "adhesion" which can be found, as I just mentioned, in the Larousse dictionary, which is universally recognized for the definition of words.
Mr. Speaker, it may be that-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member answer a question? I have listened to him with interest up to this point but does he suggest there should be any connection be-

tween Canada and the commonwealth and, if he does, what should be the symbol of that connection?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think it is possible for free and independent nations such as Canada to join the commonwealth. 1 do not have the slightest intention to suggest anything else, but not an "adhesion." Participation, very well. When we participate, we are equal members, with equal voice and equal decision. But what is suggested at the present time? As can be seen on page 834 of Votes and Proceedings, and more particularly in the third from last paragraph of the report of the committee, it is suggested to fly-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will you answer the question? If you don't want to answer it then say so.


Gilles Grégoire: I have answered the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You don't understand my question.


Gilles Grégoire: Then ask it again.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question is twofold. Should we be a part of the commonwealth-


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -and if we should be a part of the commonwealth what flag or symbol should represent Canada as a member of the commonwealth?


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the first part of the question, I will say that we are a part of the commonwealth.

A part of the commonwealth? We advocate that we be a partner in the commonwealth. Does that answer the first part of your question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: As for the second part of the question, I would suggest-

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is neither the responsibility of Canada, nor of the Liberal government nor the Prime Minister, to decide what the commonwealth flag will be, but of all the prime ministers of the commonwealth to choose a flag which will
Canadian Flag
really identify the commonwealth of free nations.
It is not a responsibility of Canada to decide what the commonwealth flag will be. That decision is neither the sole responsibility of Canada, nor of the Prime Minister, nor of the Liberal members or of the Canadian parliament, it is the responsibility of all the parliaments or all the prime ministers of the commonwealth countries, which will be able to agree to choose a flag which will really be significant of the commonwealth, like in the United Nations where many nations agreed to choose a flag of the nations which was accepted by all the nations of this world as the only symbol of the United Nations.
But what we do not accept at the outset in the committee report, is that we are asked to adhere to the commonwealth, to enter with it into "contact d'adhesion" in which we would have nothing to say and where another nation will lay down its conditions to us without allowing us to discuss them in advance.


Auguste Choquette: Would you object to reading the whole definition of the words "adhere" or "adhesion" as given by the dictionary?


Gilles Grégoire: Very well.
"Adhesion: nom feminin."
Here it says the word is feminine in French. Two synonyms are given.
"Union." "Jonction".


Auguste Choquette: As, "jonction".


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, "jonction", precisely. I do not believe that the commonwealth is a union. It is an association of free and equal partners. It is not a union.


Auguste Choquette: That is it.


Gilles Grégoire: No, it is not a union; it is an association of free and equal partners, and in that capacity we may belong to it.
It is not a "jonction", because we do not amalgamate but we develop individually in order to develop together. There is a difference between that and the word "union".


Auguste Choquette: It is a definition through association.


Gilles Grégoire: In the real meaning of the word:
"Contrat d'adhesion"-a contract where all the terms are set out in advance by one of the contracting parties without the other parties having any say in the matter.
Examples are given: gas, telephone, transportation, etc.

Canadian Flag


Auguste Choquette: Provided you pay your telephone bills.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, provided you pay your bills with the telephone company-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member to let the hon. member for Lapointe, who has the floor, proceed without interruption.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Once again, I ask the hon. member to let the hon. member for Lapointe proceed without interruption. At the same time, I would invite the hon. member who has the floor to come back to the matter under consideration.


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere is not well-founded.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order, which is well-founded, is this. In my opinion, the hon. member for Lapointe has no right to give an incorrect definition of the word "adhesion".


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere is not well taken.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is obviously no point of order there.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Lotbiniere wishes to speak, he should do so when his turn comes.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member for Lotbiniere sit down. The hon. member raised a point of order, but there is no point of order. At this time, I recognize the hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Auguste Choquette: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, are they preventing us from talking? What about freedom of speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere rises on a question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, in this house, and that justifies my question of privilege,

there are people who cannot be as familiar with the French language as those who speak that language as their mother tongue-


Gilles Grégoire: This is not a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Auguste Choquette: I rose on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: There is no question of privilege and I would ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest we allow the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) to speak to his question of privilege? The Chair is doubtful that there is any real question of privilege but the hon. member is entitled to make his point.


Auguste Choquette: My question of privilege is as follows: If the hon. member for Lapointe is allowed to define the word "adhesion" as he is doing-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there is no question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, may I state my question of privilege completely? I had barely started before I was interrupted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I have the co-operation of all hon. members.

The hon. member for Lapointe will admit that the hon. member-


Gilles Grégoire: Let him state his question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: Just keep quiet and I will make it.

Mr. Speaker, I was interrupted before I could state part of my question of privilege.
My question of privilege is this. It is obvious that some hon. members are not acquainted with French as well as we are-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe does not give the right definition of the word "adhesion"-


Gilles Grégoire: There is no question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no question of privilege. The member for Lapointe has the floor.


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member for-


Eric Alfred Winkler: On a further question of privilege, we on this side of the house are interested in making a determination with regard to the amendment this evening. If these two hon. members continue to argue as petulantly as they are now doing we will get nowhere.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we are also anxious to dispose of the matter as promptly as possible provided there will be no obstruction from the other side.


Auguste Choquette: It hurts the hon. member for Lapointe.


An hon. Member:: It bothers him.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I had just reached the point of explaining the idea of "adhesion" to the commonwealth and why we object to the wording of the seventh report of the special committee on a Canadian flag.
"Adhesion" refers to a ruling nation and to another which is being dominated.


Auguste Choquette: That is not true.


Gilles Grégoire: We do not accept this, Mr. Speaker, a ruling nation and a nation which is dominated. We believe in an equal partnership of all free commonwealth countries.
Would this adhesion be symbolized by the loans granted without interest to the United Kingdom by the Bank of Canada? Would that be Canada's adhesion to the commonwealth? A nation imposing its terms upon another? And we, in Canada, are supposed to accept all this?
Well, Mr. Speaker, we are ready to be recognized as partners, as a participating nation, but not as one which has a "contrat d'adhesion" with the commonwealth of free nations.
Now, I shall ask this question. Which other commonwealth countries accepted the union jack to signify their partnership? I am not using the term "adhesion" but "partnership", because the word "adhesion" is a monumental
Canadian Flag
error in the seventh report of the special committee on the flag which we should hasten to rectify by unanimous consent of the house.
But what other commonwealth countries have adopted the union jack as their flag, by a vote of their own parliaments, to symbolize their partnership in the British commonwealth of free nations? There are none, so why should Canada do so? Are we in such a hurry to give ourselves this flag in anticipation, now that we have decided to have one, whereas, since confederation, we Canadians have been refused a distinctive national flag?
Mr. Speaker, what are the other countries which, under the same circumstances, and through parliament, had members who are responsible to the people vote in favour of a flag as a symbol of their membership in the commonwealth? There are none.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the union jack is not the flag of the commonwealth and has never been. It has always been the flag of England, the flag of the British empire, but it is not the flag of the commonwealth. On the other hand, the Prime Minister admitted himself that it is not the Queen's flag, but the flag of royalty. Every attempt was made to make us Canadians distinguish between the Queen of England and the Queen of Canada, in order that we should accept the latter.
Today they want us to assimilate British royalty with Canadian royalty, in order to have us adopt the union jack. They have always tried to make two different things out of Queen Elizabeth II: on the one hand, she was the Queen of England, and on the other hand, the Queen of Canada. I even recall that, to make us understand, they tried to compare her to the Holy Trinity: only one God, but three persons, three distinct persons. We were told, I do not know for how long, that she was the Queen of England, but not the Queen of Canada; that it could be the same person, but not the Queen of Canada; that those were definitely two different things.
And now, today, they would have us accept once and for all what they have always maintained in Ottawa: this royalty united into one person, the Queen of England and the Queen of Canada, the same royalty. They then go on to say that, since the union jack represents the flag of royalty, we must have the union jack in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, when we took the oath of allegiance, it was to the Queen of Canada and not to the Queen of England that we pledged our loyalty, so that should a conflict arise between the various countries of the commonwealth, should we have to fight one against

Canadian Flag
the others, should we have to choose, should there be a conflict of interests, our allegiance would force us to fight for the Queen of Canada and not for the Queen of Australia or New Zealand. Here, in Ottawa, in an effort to make us accept the crown, we were always told that the crown in Canada and the crown in England were two different things. Today, a package deal is offered us. Well, we no longer accept it.


David Réal Caouette: No package deal.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the union jack is England's flag and not the commonwealth's.


David Réal Caouette: That is right.


Gilles Grégoire: If England is the commonwealth of free nations then we refuse, Mr. Speaker, to be part of it in the future. On the contrary, if it is a group, an assocication of free nations, very well then, but if England is the commonwealth, we are out. And what they are trying to force upon us today is not the commonwealth flag but the flag of England.
Mr. Speaker, when time came to choose a flag at the United Nations the United States flag was not chosen. The United States did not try to impose their flag on the United Nations under the pretence that they are located in the United States, on American soil. A part of United States territory was made into a free territory.
The United States did not, at the same time, impose their flag upon the United Nations; the latter chose a truly distinctive flag. Today we are asked to approve the British flag to symbolize Canada's "appurtenance" to the commonwealth.
Several Liberal members, and especially those from the province of Quebec, will admit that I am perfectly right.
This afternoon we heard the Prime Minister of Canada quoting Bona Arsenault to add weight to his thesis; I must say that, at that point, he could not rise to the occasion if he had to resort to Bona "la pitoune" Arsenault, of Quebec. His argument must have been very weak indeed if he had to quote him. If he can quote that passage, why then does he not accept his statement according to which the C.B.C., in Montreal, is infiltrated with communists? Oh. No. There are protests among the members of the Liberal party, because Bona Arsenault is a man who changes his mind as often as he changes his shirt, and he must change his shirt quite often because he changes his mind often too. Is the Prime 
Minister so short of quotations that he feels he has to quote Mr. Bona Arsenault? I would say, therefore, that his argument is very weak indeed and even sophisticated.
I never heard such a series of sophisms as I heard this afternoon to try and make us adopt this flag. We have been told: It is the flag of royalty; the Queen is the head of the commonwealth, therefore, we choose the union jack.
On the other hand, it is also true that the royalty is not recognized in all the commonwealth countries. Royalty is not recognized in Ghana or in India. Yet, the Queen is recognized as head of the commonwealth.
Then, Mr. Speaker, it is not the royal flag that is needed but the flag of the Queen of Canada and, in my opinion, the best flag for the Queen of Canada would be the national distinctive flag we have chosen yesterday, as it will be the one that will really symbolize royalty in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have but ten minutes left.
Time has come for Canada to assert herself in the world. A year ago I found out at the United Nations that the Prime Minister was not treated like a chief of state but rather like a servant in the United Nations because, as we were told, only the chiefs of states are entitled to a special seat. But the Prime Minister was not entitled to the "blue seat treatment", since the chief of state of Canada is the Queen of England. Then, let us give the Prime Minister of Canada an opportunity to become the real head of state of Canada and to be considered as such at the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, because we believe we are perhaps the most Canadian of the Canadians, we object to the union jack becoming the symbol of the commonwealth, as well as to the red ensign. When the commonwealth chooses a flag accepted by all the countries in the commonwealth, then we shall accept it, not by a vote in this house, but by custom, and that will be all. Until then, we accept only one national distinctive flag, namely the one we chose yesterday, the maple leaf flag, and we shall accept no other, let alone the flags of other countries.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that, as I see the clock from here, it is ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the concurrence of the house to deal with government notices of motions on today's order paper, so they can be transferred to the orders of the day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is reverting to motions, Mr. Speaker. We had hoped that there would be a vote tonight so we could get on with the business of the house.


George James McIlraith: I am quite agreeable, Mr. Speaker, if the house is willing to sit on and there is any prospect of reaching a vote tonight.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Two members of the government party were asking for the floor 15 or 20 minutes ago.


George James McIlraith: That was 15 or 20 minutes ago. Perhaps we could have the vote tonight, Mr. Speaker, if the house would agree to sit a little longer.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we do not give our consent to proceed with a vote tonight, as we feel that if we have been unable to vote tonight, it is because of the systematic obstruction from the other side of the house. Because of this obstruction, we will not agree to vote later tonight.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will agree to revert to
motions for this purpose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear what my hon. friend for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) said just now; but I was going to make the plea that we might agree to transferring notices of motions tonight. I wonder if we could also have an understanding that, whether or not we get to oral questions tomorrow, we take the two or three minutes that would be necessary for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Stewart) to deal with written questions on the order paper, because they are piling up.


George James McIlraith: I would be very glad to agree to that, Mr. Speaker. Could it be made an order of the house so there will be no difficulty, if we answer the written questions tomorrow, about departing from the motion before the house.
Judges Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The house has heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council. Is it agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: May we transfer the notices of motion, the one standing in the name of the Minister of Justice and the other standing in the name of the Minister of Finance, to orders of the day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TRANSFER TO PROVINCES OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SHARED PROGRAMS

Mitchell William Sharp: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure of an interim nature respecting certain conditional-grant and shared-cost programs that have become established federal-provincial programs to enable such of the provinces as may wish to do so to assume financial responsibility for such programs within the ambit of national objectives; and, in respect of those provinces that assume such responsibility for specific programs, to provide a tax abatement under the Income Tax Act, a tax equalization payment and, where necessary, an adjustment payment, or to provide a cash payment in lieu of a tax abatement for particular programs or as cash compensation in other cases, and to authorize such agreements as may be necessary to ensure that the continuation in the interim period of any such program by provinces with such federal assistance will accord with national objectives; and to provide for other related or incidental matters.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Did I understand the Chair to say the motion was moved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon)?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion was moved by Mr. Sharp for Mr. Gordon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to amend Bill C-112, an act to amend the Judges Act, now before the house, to authorize the provision of salaries for two additional judges of the court of Queen's bench

Combines Investigation Act for Manitoba and to increase from three to five the number of additional judges of the superior court of Quebec for whom salaries may be authorized to be provided.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the house seems to be in very good humour, perhaps hon. members would consider granting leave to introduce the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT AND CRIMINAL CODE


Guy Favreau: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-141, an act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Guy Favreau: As this house well knows, the purpose of this bill is to extend the moratorium which prevents or suspends the application of the Combines Investigation Act as far as the relations between fishermen of British Columbia and those who process fish are concerned.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this house stands adjourned until two thirty o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday. December 16, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
May I be permitted to call attention to the ceremony that took place this afternoon on parliament hill when a good many people, under the patronage of the Societe historique de Boucherville, paid tribute to two great Canadians, the Hon. Robert Baldwin and Sir Louis-Hyppolyte Lafontaine.
Sir Louis-Hyppolyte Lafontaine died 100 years ago, and it was 50 years ago this year that a joint monument was erected on parliament hill to those two great politicians.
Mr. Speaker, we could not let this occasion pass without recalling that Sir Louis-Hyppolyte Lafontaine and the Hon. Robert Baldwin were those who made the strongest stand to obtain for us what is called today a responsible government.
One could recall also that the first step taken by Lafontaine on entering parliament was to make a speech in French to ask for equal status for the French language in parliament. If, today, we can make speeches in our mother tongue in this house, we owe it to Lafontaine and Baldwin.
That is what I wanted to call attention to in rising on a question of privilege.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to seeking a world patent system recognized by all states?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: The laws on patent are based on existing international conventions and the matter is receiving periodical consideration.


C.N.R. RENTAL FOR PALAIS STATION, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Is the rental paid by Canadian National Railways to Canadian Pacific Railway for the use of the Palais station in Quebec city still based on the agreements signed in 1932 and 1933?
2.	Does the present rental charge include the same services as were included in 1933?
3.	What were the amounts paid by Canadian National Railways, in the Palais station premises in Quebec city, to Canadian Pacific Railway for the years 1933 and 1942 and for each year since 1957?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The
management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	Payments made to the Canadian Pacific Railway for use of Palais station and associated facilities are still based on the principles of the original agreement of 1915 and the supplemental agreements of 1930 and 1933.
2.	Yes.
3.	Canadian National shares in the operating cost on the basis of general and coach yard wheelage ratios, and also contributes 50 per cent of the interest on invested capital. Due to the fact that the joint expenses are grouped with those of other related facilities, it would be difficult to segregate, with any degree of accuracy, the user road's share of expenses applicable to Palais station premises.


C.N.R. MAINTENANCE CHARGES, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Marcoux: For each year between 1939 and 1955 (a) what was the total number of hours charged to the Canadian National Railways for maintenance and operation of the C.N. railway cars at the Palais station in Quebec city (b) what was the total cost of the hours charged for repairing such railway cars (c) what was the cost of parts billed to the C.N.R. by the C.P.R.?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
As the records of the company have been destroyed this information is no longer available.

Questions


FRENCH TEACHERS FOR CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Coales: 1.	How many individuals have been employed by the civil service commission as French teachers for civil servants?
2.	What is the salary range for those employed in these positions and what is the total annual expenditure?
3.	Has a special branch been set up to carry out this program and what is the estimated cost to the federal treasury for the establishment of this branch and its annual operation?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of Slate):: 1. The civil service commission has employed 21 persons, 11 in full time continuing positions and 10 on a casual basis, to teach French in the civil service commission language training centre.
2.	The salary ranges for those employed in these positions are from $5,400 to $10,500 per annum. The estimated total expenditure on salaries for these employees in the period April 1, 1964 to March 31, 1965 is $61,155.
3.	The civil service commission has established a language training centre, a division of the executive secretary's branch of the commission. The estimated total cost of the centre to the federal treasury, including faculty heads, administrative and clerical services, office rental, and also English teachers who teach English to French students, for the period April 1, 1964 to March 31, 1965, is $230,196.


C.N.R. TRAIN CREW OPERATIONS, MOUNTAIN REGION
Mr. Lamberi: 1.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways made any recent changes, or does It intend to make changes in the near future, in the operations of train crews in its mountain region and, if so, what are these changes and how do they affect the personnel of its train crews?
2.	Is there presently any labour contract agreement between management and its operating personnel covering changes, conditions of employment between contracts and, if so, what are they and do any such provisions cover any runs between two subdivisions?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1 and 2.
The management of the Canadian National Railways point out that an inquiry has been instituted by the Minister of Labour under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act into the industrial situation arising from the running of certain trains through the terminals at Nakina and Wainwright, and as the matter is under investigation the management are of the opinion that it would be inadvisable to give information outside of the inquiry.


PENITENTIARY EMPLOYEES PROVIDED WITH WEAPONS
Mr. Howard: Has any penitentiary employee been provided with a blackjack or other similar truncheon, club, or weapon and, if so, in which penitentiaries were such weapons so provided, in which areas in each such penitentiary, and has any such employee ever had occasion to use such a weapon and, if so, what are the details thereof?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Custodial officers of the Canadian penitentiary service were issued with regulation billies at the following penitentiaries: Dorchester penitentiary; St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary; Manitoba penitentiary; Saskatchewan penitentiary; British Columbia penitentiary.
2.	Such weapons were provided for employment in areas as follows: (a) Dorchester penitentiary, to the officers assigned to the dissociation and segregation areas (b) St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, to the officers assigned to the dissociation and segregation areas (c) Manitoba penitentiary, to the officer assigned to the dissociation area (d) Saskatchewan penitentiary, to the officers patrolling ranges after the closing of the prison (e) British Columbia penitentiary, to all custodial officers employed at the penitentiary.
3.	Custodial officers had the occasion to use such a weapon under the circumstances described hereunder:
(a)	Dorchester penitentiary, there has only been one such incident during the course of the last year. Two inmates were exercising in the dissociation area, when they began to fight with one another. The officer supervising the exercise attempted to intervene and break up the fight whereupon one inmate turned on the officer and attempted to attack him. The officer drew his billy and struck the inmate one blow. The inmate desisted immediately. The injury was not serious, the inmate did not require hospitalization and received immediate first aid to a slight cut on the back of the head.
(b)	St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, on one evening in 1963, in cell block No. 1, one inmate set fire in his mattress and cell equipment. The three officers on duty went to remove him from his cell as the inmate appeared to be unconscious. The officers carried the inmate to a table, and while two officers were looking for the stretcher in the same building, the inmate suddenly stood up and attacked the third officer, reaching for his neck or his face. One of the two first officers came back rapidly and used his billy on the inmate's head.

The blow was sufficient to stop the attack, however, the inmate was not unconscious. He was escorted to the hospital for check-up. He was not seriously hurt.
On another occasion in 1962, two inmates returning from the exercise period attacked the three guards escorting them and five other inmates to the isolation cells. One guard was hit on the head, suffering a serious cut which kept him away from work for a period of two months. Another guard suffered a broken right hand.
The guards were not able to reach their billy and one of them had to use a shovel to free the guard who had been hit on the head. These two inmates had attacked the officers by using one bench and one brush handle and were inciting the five other inmates to participate, in order to take hold of that building. These inmates were sent to the criminal court and were sentenced to one year consecutive.
4.	In all other cases of attacks by inmates against custodial personnel, such attacks numbering to 23 since 1962, the guards have used their bare hands to overcome inmates using knives, crowbars, soft drink bottles or broken pieces of furniture. Nineteen officers have suffered injuries, varying from slight contusions to 100 per cent permanent disability confirmed by the provincial labour department work accidents compensation board.


VISITS TO PENITENTIARIES BY JUDGES OR MAGISTRATES
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1963, have any judges or magistrates visited any penitentiaries and, if so, what are the names and addresses of the said judges or magistrates, the penitentiaries which they visited and the dates of the said visits?
2.	Did any of the judges or magistrates, make any comments or recommendations following such visits and, if so, what comments or recommendations and what action has been taken thereon?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1 and 2.
Since January 1, 1963, the following judges or magistrates have visited Canadian penitentiaries as listed hereunder and commented as indicated:
Kingston penitentiary:
February 15, 1963, Magistrate H. T. G. Andrews, address unknown.
June 6, 1964, a group of 42 magistrates of the province of Ontario who were attending a provincial convention in the city of Kingston, names and addresses unknown.
April 17, 1964, Hon. Mr. Justice Brooke and six other honourable justices from the
Questions
supreme court of Ontario, names and addresses unknown.
October 20, 1964, Hon. Judge Lyon of York county, address unknown. Hon. Judge H. Waisberg of York county, address unknown.
The comments that were made by these judges and magistrates were complimentary and no particular recommendations were made by any of them.
Agassiz correctional camp:
June 22, 1963, Mrs. Edward Brockman, a member of the council of magistrates, England; Mrs. Brockman commented as follows:
I found it all most interesting, so much man's work to be done out there, that the effect cannot be anything but good-also the kindness of all who showed us around made me understand what a bond there is, all the world over, between the people who work among convicts.
Saskatchewan penitentiary:
January 21, 1963, Judge T. Hughes of Saskatoon. General comments of favourable nature. No specific recommendations.
January 22, 1963, Justice M. S. MacPherson of Regina. Made favourable comments and has since communicated with the institution on many occasions, with reference to training programs available.
June 10, 1963, 15 judges of the magistrate's court of Saskatchewan: Judge L. F. Bence, Regina; Judge E. L. Elliott, Regina; Judge W. G. Cameron, Regina; Judge T. Taylor, Saskatoon; Judge R. H. King, Saskatoon; Judge J. J. Flynn, Moose Jaw; Judge E. Z. Anderson, Prince Albert; Judge A. C. McMurdo, Prince Albert; Judge D. J. Mitchell, Weyburn; Judge R. D. Newsome, Estevan; Judge J. M. Policha, North Battleford; Judge J. H. Sunstrum, Rosetown; Magistrate R. D. McAra, Melfort; Magistrate K. B. Crawford, Meadow Lake; Magistrate G. K. Fielding, Wynyard.
Comments were of a favourable nature and no specific recommendations were made.
July 22,	1963, Chief Judge Nelles V.
Buchanan, northern Alberta. Judge Buchanan commented as follows:
I merely wanted to say to you that I greatly appreciated your kind co-operation in seeing to it that I had the opportunity of inspecting in detail the penitentiary and the penal farm. I should have seen your institution long ago and having seen it I feel that I am in a better position to handle the problem of sentencing of prisoners who happen to appear, for sentence, before me.
Dorchester penitentiary:
October 11, 1963, Hon. Judge J. Albert Pichette, Edmonton, New Brunswick.

Questions
May 14, 1964, Magistrate J. P. Mackin, Collin's bay penitentiary:
Saint John, New Brunswick. No comments or Visits by judges and magistrates since 1 recommendations made.	January 1963:
Date	Title	Name	Address6	June 63	Asst, police magistrate	P. E. D. Baker	Kingston6	June 63	Magistrate	J. E. Robinson	Hamilton6	June 63	Magistrate	G. H. Jermyn	Gananoque6	June 63	Magistrate	F. Ebbs	Oshawa27	June 63	Judge	W. A. E. Sheppard	Toronto17	Apr. 64	Justice	Hon. Mr. Justice Brooke	Osgoode Hall Toronto17	Apr. 64	Judge	N. C. Fraser	Toronto17	Apr. 64	Judge	E. L. Haines	Toronto17	Apr. 64	Judge	L. A. Landreville	Toronto17	Apr. 64	Judge	J. Moorehouse	Toronto17	Apr. 64	Judge	W. D. Parker	Toronto17	Apr. 64	Judge	S. N. Schatz	Toronto20	Oct. 64	C. C. judge	H. Waisberg	Toronto
(A director of the J.H.S.)
Comments of a general nature were made. No specific recommendations. Hon. Mr. J. Brooke wrote as follows following his visit:
We were impressed with the difference between this institution and Kingston penitentiary and with the training that is available to inmates. Your comments with respect to the length of time that it takes to complete the training course adequately at Collin's bay is a matter which we will bear in mind in considering the question of sentence.
Joyceville institution:
June 6, 1963, three magistrates attending a seminar at Queen's University visited the institution under the direction of Magistrate A. Falzetta, secretary of the Ontario magistrates' association, Sudbury, Ontario.
June 26, 1963, Hon. Judge W. Sheppard, Toronto.
April 17,	1964, Hon. Justices W. D.
Parker, S. Schatz, J. Brooke, E. Moorehouse, L. Landreville, E. Haines and N. Fraser of the supreme court of Ontario, addresses unknown.
October 20, 1964, Hon. Judge Lyon of York county, address unknown.
Prison for women:
October 20, 1964, Hon. Judge Lyon of York county, address unknown.
In all cases comments were favourable and no recommendations were made.


LAU NGAR MYE-CHARGES UNDER IMMIGRATION ACT
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Was a charge of making false statements under the provisions of the Immigration Act or any related charge made recently against Lau Ngar Mye of the Toronto area?
2.	If so, has a trial been held and with what result?
3.	If such prosecution has taken place, what were the circumstances which removed Lau Ngar Mye from the protection of the amnesty granted in 1961 to Chinese nationals who had entered Canada illegally?
4.	If Lau Ngar Mye has been convicted and suffers a penalty thereby, is there to be any further penalty or disability, such as deportation, which he may incur?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes, he was convicted and sentenced to a fine of $1,000 or four months imprisonment. The fine was paid.
3.	He did not qualify for the amnesty because it applied only to illegalities related to illegal entry and did not apply to subsequent illegalities not related thereto.
4.	No.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA-DRAMATIC PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: Did the present owners of the private t.v. channel in Ottawa, or their associates, undertake with

the B.B.G. to produce a number of hour long dramatic programs in Ottawa and, if so, how many have been produced?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Ted Cott of N.T.A. Telefilm (Canada) Ltd. appeared at the public hearing with the CJOH application. He stated "we are prepared to produce one or more of the 'Play of the Week' programs up here in association with Mr. Bushnell". The board has no information as to whether these programs were produced.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA- AWARD TO CANADIAN PLAYWRIGHT
Mr. Orlikow: Did the present owners of CJOH, or their associates, undertake to provide an award to a Canadian playwright for the best play and, if so (a) has such an award ever been made (b) what is the value of such award?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Ted Cott of N.T.A. Telefilm (Canada) Ltd. appeared at the public hearing with the CJOH application. He stated:
We are preparing to produce one or more of the "Play of the Week" programs up here in association with Mr. Bushnell and, in fact, when and if this licence is granted, we are prepared to announce the establishment of an award to a Canadian playwright for the best play which can be produced on this program.
In the logging process stations are not required to file with the board information of this kind. The board, therefore has no information as to whether the station has made such an award, or its value.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA- PRODUCTIONS FOR U.S. SHOWING
Mr. Orlikow: Did associates of the present owners of CJOH undertake with the B.B.G. to produce such programs as "Open end" in Ottawa for showing in New York and other American cities and, if so, have any such programs been produced in Ottawa and shown in the United States?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Ted Cott of N.T.A. Telefilm (Canada) Ltd. appeared at the public hearing with the CJOH application. He stated:
We look forward in our discussion with Mr. Bushnell and his associates to be able to do various of our "Open End" programs here so that they would be presented in New York city, and, since they are taped, they are also presented to other of the major cities in the United States.
In the logging process stations are not required to advise the board of productions they have undertaken or of material that has been shown in the United States. The board, therefore, has no information on this matter.
Questions


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA- SERIES FOR CHILDREN
Mr. Orlikow: Did associates or the present owners of CJOH undertake with the B.B.G. to have a series for children made in co-operation with a company in France, partly in English and partly in French, using Canadian talent and, if so, has any such series been produced and shown on Canadian t.v.?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. N. A. Taylor, president of N. A. Taylor Associates, a group of companies concerned with the production and distribution of films, appeared at the public hearing with the CJOH application. He stated:
We have also invested in the co-production of a pilot film for a television series for children. We have done this in co-operation with a company in France. We hope to make part of the series in France and part of the series in Canada...
In the logging process stations are not required to advise the board of productions that they have undertaken. The board has no information as to whether such programs were produced and shown on Canadian television.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA- PRODUCTION OF FILMS BASED ON CANADIAN NOVELS
Mr. Orlikow: Did associates, or the present owners, of CJOH in Ottawa, undertake with the B.B.G. to produce motion pictures based on Canadian novels and to show them internationally and, if so, have any such films been produced?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. N. A. Taylor, president of N. A. Taylor Associates, a group of companies concerned with the production and distribution of films, appeared at the public hearing with the CJOH application. He indicated that one of his film companies had produced one such film and was considering the production of others. The board has no information as to whether these films were produced.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA- DEVELOPMENT OF CANADIAN TALENT
Mr. Orlikow: Did the owners of CJOH in Ottawa undertake with the B.B.G. to give priority to the encouragement and development of Canadian talent and, if so, how many Canadian artists have appeared on programs originating at CJOH and what are their names?


Maurice Lamontagne: In his application to the board Mr. Bushnell stated: "The discovery, encouragement and development of talent will be given

Questions
a high priority". Stations are not required in the logging process to file information of this kind with the board. It would be the board's intention at the public hearing of the application for the renewal of the licence of the station which expires on March 31, 1966, to examine the licensee on the station's operation in the light of undertakings given with respect to the employment of the staff and artists.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA-EXCHANGE PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: Did the present owners of CJOH in Ottawa undertake with the B.B.G. to exchange shows, created in Ottawa, with the United States and England, and, if so, have any such shows been organized?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes. In the logging process stations are not required to file with the board information of this kind. The board, therefore, has no information as to whether any such shows have been organized.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA-FRENCH PROGRAMMING
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the successful applicants for channel 13 in Ottawa promise the B.B.G. that they would provide a minimum of ten hours of French language broadcasting, each week, produced in Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec?
2.	How much French programming has CJOH televised since it began operations?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
2.	The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA- USE OF OTTAWA PERFORMERS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did CJOH promise the B.B.G. that they would schedule variety and live dance programs produced in Ottawa and using Ottawa artists, musicians, etc.?
2.	Have any such programs been produced, and, if so (a) how many, and (b) at what cost?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
2. (a) The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested, (b) The board does not make public the financial information it receives from private station operations.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA-PROPOSED USE OF TALENT AND STAFF
Mr. Orlikow: Did the successful applicant for a private t.v. channel in Ottawa ask the B.B.G. to compare the superior quality of their plans for the use of talent and staff as compared to those of the other applicants?


Maurice Lamontagne: The board's record indicates that the applicant made the following statement at the public hearing while presenting the application for CJOH-TV: "We feel that the board must consider the lower sights that the other four applicants have set and ensured by their talent and staff allowances."


VISIT BY MINISTER TO ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	Did the Minister of Justice visit St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary on October 26, 1964 and, if so (a) who accompanied him on this visit, and (b) what was the purpose of this visit (c) what was the outcome of this visit (d) will the minister prepare a report concerning the conditions observed at the institution in the course of this visit (e) will the minister table such a report before the House of Commons?
2.	Did the minister verify, in particular, if any of the charges made by an ex-inmate of this institution, in the course of a C.B.C. program called "This Hour Has Seven Days" on Sunday, October 25, 1964, were founded and, if so, what measures does the minister intend to take to correct this situation?
3.	Did he, in particular, verify details of the charges made in regard to one Gaston Nicholas, an inmate in this penitentiary and did he establish if this person has been denied the privilege of keeping his daughter's picture in his cell?
4.	Did the minister and his party partake of a meal within the prison walls and, if so (a) was this fare the regular fare served to the inmates, and (b) was a special menu arranged for the prisoners on that day because of the minister's visit?
5.	Has any disciplinary action been taken or is any such action being considered against the warden of this institution or any of its officials?
6.	Are the guards on duty at this institution being examined as to their mental and physical aptitudes to fill these positions?
7.	What qualifications are required to fill these
positions?
8.	Are any guards being removed as being unfit to fill their position?
9.	What measures is the minister planning to remedy the conditions existing at this institution and what committees will be appointed to deal with same?
10.	What powers will these committees have, and how will their membership be composed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. The
Minister of Justice visited the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary on Monday, October 26,

1964. (a) The minister was accompanied by the Minister of Public Works and approximately 60 representatives of the press, radio and television, (b) The purpose of the visit was for the minister to see for himself the existing conditions at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, (c) This visit satisfied the minister that the present facilities at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary should be abandoned as soon as possible and, in consequence, both he and the Minister of Public Works were impressed with the need to press the completion of construction of new facilities with all speed, (d) No. (e) No.
2.	The minister investigated these accusations and found nothing that would substantiate them.
3.	Yes. The penitentiary authorities denied permitting this inmate to keep one unusually large photograph of his daughter. However, a photograph of regulation size is now in this inmate's possession.
4.	The minister and his party did not partake of a meal within the prison walls. During the visit of the kitchen and servery, the regular fare served to the inmates was inspected and tasted by the minister and any other person who wished to do so. No special menu was arranged for the prisoners.
5.	No.
6.	Yes.
7.	The qualifications required to fill these positions are: (a) Age limit, 23 to 40 years, (b) Physical fitness; height, minimum 5' 8"; weight, satisfactory for height, build and age; eyes, not less than 20/60 without glasses; must satisfy institutional doctor in all medical aspects as to physical fitness, (c) Education, minimum of grade 10 (grade 9, Quebec) or equivalent and achieve suitable standards in any psychological personality tests that may be given, (d) Ability, proven satisfactory police or military experience is a decided asset for any applicant, (e) Character and appearance, the applicant should be neat in appearance. During the selection board interview, the applicant is assessed as to: (i) suitability for carrying out duties according to regulations; (ii) ability to express himself orally; (iii) self control; (iv) self confidence; (v) potential leadership; (vi) ability to co-operate with others, (f) Training; to pass a three month induction training course and a further three month probationary period of employment.
8.	No.
9.	Measures have been taken by the Minister of Public Works to hasten the construction program of penitentiary institutions in the
Questions
province of Quebec. It is also intended to establish two committees; one parliamentary committee to deal with the physical and material need of penal institutions, the other a committee of experts to deal with the overall field of correction in Canada.
10.	The composition and powers of these committees are now being considered and the minister intends to advise the house as soon as a decision will have been taken on this subject.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	How many people are employed In the C.B.C.?
2.	What is the total capital investment of this crown corporation?
3.	For the past complete fiscal year, what was the total revenue the C.B.C. earned or produced?
4.	How much money was paid to the C.B.C. out of the public treasury in 1963?
5.	What was the total cost of producing films by the C.B.C. in 1963, which said films or any part thereof were not, and will not be shown on the television network?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	8,089 as at September 30, 1964.
2.	The total cost to the corporation of capital assets in use at March 31, 1964, as shown by the latest published balance sheet of the corporation, was $68,442,958. The net book value of these assets after provision for depreciation, was $36,612,401.
3.	Total gross revenue earned or produced by C.B.C. in the fiscal year 1963-64, $33,010,055.
4.	Parliamentary grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service 1963-64, $78,376,828. Parliamentary grant for the capital requirements of the national broadcasting service 1963-64, $7,332,985.
5.	The combined film and video tape writeoff for two television networks in the 1963-64 fiscal year totalled $104,751. This included the costs of programs cancelled because of emergency programming, such as the death of President Kennedy, and material unsuitable for use.


CONSIDERATION OF AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION, KIMBERLEY. B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1964, has the government received any representations for building an airport at, or near, the St. Eugene Indian reserve near Kimberley, B.C., and, if so, from whom were the

Questions
representations received, what was the nature of each and what action is contemplated with respect
thereto?
2.	In the course of considering any such representations, or in considering the question without any such representations, were any members of parliament consulted and, if so, which ones and what was the response in each case?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. No, but
the department has itself been in touch with various local municipalities regarding the airport problems of both the east and west Kootenays and its present investigations of alternate possibilities.
2.	In reply to requests received from the member for Kootenay East regarding the future prospects for the Cranbrook airport, information on these current departmental investigations was supplied to him.


LAND PURCHASE, CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.
Mr. MacLean (Queens): Has the government, during the last year and a half, purchased land in the city of Charlottetown and, if so (a) what is the area of the land purchased (b) from whom was the land purchased (c) what was the total price paid (d) what is the intended use to be made of the land purchased?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes, (a) 0.34 acre; (b) A. Pickard & Co.; (c) $7,428.37, (d) marine agency depot.


TELEVISION STATION CJAY, WINNIPEG- VARIETY PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Manitoba, undertake with the B.B.G. to provide an opportunity for professional and up-and-coming amateurs, to develop their talents on that channel?
2.	Have any actors, musicians, singers and variety artists been hired for programs produced by the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Manitoba and, if so, since the station began to operate, how many and when?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
2.	Stations are not required in the logging process to file with the board information concerning the hiring of specific talent. It would be the board's intention at the public hearing of the application for the renewal of the licence of the station which expires on March 31, 1966, to examine the licensee on the station's operation in the light of undertakings given with respect to the employment of artists.


EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION ON AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):

1.	Is the government conducting or supporting research into the present or possible future effects of air pollution on agriculture and, if so, at which institutions and under whose direction is such research being carried out?
2.	What have been the findings of each research project carried out within the last year?
3.	For each of the last five years, what has been the cost to the government of such research?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. The Department of Agriculture is not conducting or supporting research into the present or possible future effects of air pollution on agriculture.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.


AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Is the Department of Transport conducting or supporting research into methods of air pollution control and, if so, at which institutions and under whose direction is such research being carried out?
2.	What have been the findings of each research project carried out within the last year?
3.	For each of the last five years, what has been the cost to the government of such research?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


JOLIETTE, QUE., FEDERAL BUILDING-AIR CONDITIONING
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Does the government intend to instal an air conditioning system in the federal building in the town of Joliette (post office, unemployment insurance office, etc.) and, if so, when?
2.	If no air conditioning is to be installed, for what reason?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No.
2.	The federal building at Joliette was built in 1888, with additions constructed in 1914 and 1952, and is typical of many buildings across the country where risk of deterioration from moisture saturation of the fabric of the building, and the materials of construction, will most likely prevent the installation of an air conditioning system. Investigation into different phases of this general problem is underway, both at the national research council and at the Department of Public Works.


STUDENT LOANS GRANTED
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):

1.	As of September 30, 1964, how many students in each province and territory have been granted Canada student loans?
2.	In each province and territory, what was the total of loans as of September 30, 1964?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1 and 2:
Preliminary figures on loans made under the Canada Student Loans Act as of September 30, 1964, are as follows:
Province	No.	AmountB.C.	1,456	$1,065,814.00Alta.	285	99,050.50Sask.	741	432,905.00Man.	270	100,705.00Ont.	3,781	1,851,888.00Que.	29	14,201.00N.B.	698	263,289.00N.S.	631	223,011.50P.E.I.	78	27,167.00Nfld.	130	44,225.00Yuk.	2	1,000.00Total	8,101	$4,123,256.00


COMPANIES ESTABLISHED IN DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Lessard (Lake St.: John):
1.	What are the names of companies which have set up operations in designated areas?
2.	In what location has each been established?
3.	What is the amount registered on the certificate for each of these companies and what is the type of production of each?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	It would not be in the public interest for the government to disclose the names of companies which have set up operations in designated areas and which have indicated, on a confidential basis, their intention of taking advantage of the tax incentives available to new enterprises in designated areas. When certificates under section 71A of the Income Tax Act have been issued, the government will give consideration to publishing the names of those firms which have received such certificates.
2 and 3. Companies which have set up operations in designated areas and which
Questions
have indicated their intention of taking advantage of the tax incentives are arranged alphabetically according to standard industrial classification.
In Alberta-British Columbia in the designated area of Blairmore:	electrical apparatus.
In New Brunswick in the designated areas of Campbellton, Minto, St. Stephen, Woodstock and Sussex: food, textiles, transportation equipment, wood products.
In Nova Scotia in the designated areas of Amherst, Inverness and New Glasgow: clothing, petroleum products, wood products.
In Ontario in the designated areas of Brantford, Chatham, Cornwall, Timmins, Wallaceburg and Windsor: chemicals, composite, electrical apparatus, food, leather, machinery, metal fabrication, miscellaneous, non-metallic minerals, paper products, primary metal manufacturing, printing, publishing, textiles, transportation equipment, wood products.
In Quebec in the designated areas of Causapscal, Louiseville, Matane, Mont Lau-rier, Rouyn, St. Jean, Shawinigan and Val d'Or: chemicals, electrical apparatus, knitted goods, metal fabrication, miscellaneous, nonmetallic minerals, paper products, textiles, transportation equipment, wood products.
No certificates under section 71A of the Income Tax Act have been issued to date.


SUICIDES IN FEDERAL PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Peieis: 1.	How many suicides have taken place in federal penitentiaries during the last five years and, if any. give name, location of prison, date and particular?
2.	Was an inquest ordered into each suicide and, if not, for what reason?
3.	During the same period of time how many attempted suicides were serious and how many were superficial attempts not calculated to produce death?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1 and 2. During the last five years, suicides have taken place in federal penitentiaries as follows and an inquest ordered into each suicide, except where indicated:
11198	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary
Date	Name	ParticularsApr. 7,1959 Aug. 2, 1959 Sept. 11, 1959 Jan. 31, 1960 Oct. 14, 1961 Aug. 14, 1961 Apr. 12, 1964	3862-Lyons, J. W	
3876-Hamelin, R	
4201-Poirier, A	
4777-Renaud, J	
6655-Rouleau, E	
8830-Bedard, Y	
7042-Taffet, P	By hanging. (Under psychiatric treatment) By hanging. (Under psychiatric treatment) By hanging. (Under psychiatric treatment) By hanging. By hanging. Jumped from fourth tier in dome. (Under psychiatric treatment) Death by hanging. (Under psychiatric treatment)	Kingston Penitentiary	Date	Name	ParticularsOct. 23, 1960	7324-Lapratt	
Note: The coroner declared suffocation by strangulation and did not order an inquest.	By hanging.	July 3, 1961	7886-Lebeau	
Note: The coroner declared death by strangulation and did not order an inquest.	By hanging.	Sept. 21, 1961	3755-Baylis	
Note: The coroner declared death by strangulation and did not order an inquest.	By hanging.	Sept. 29, 1962	8144-Wright	By hanging.	Apr. 26, 1964	581-Clark	By hanging.	Saskatchewan Penitentiary	Date	Name	ParticularsJan. 25, 1961	8383-McCorquodale, R. H	
Note: The coroner declared death by asphyxiation and did not order an inquest.	By hanging.	Apr. 3, 1963	8847-Brass, S. W	
Note: The coroner did not order an inquest.	By hanging.	British Columbia Penitentiary	Date	Name	ParticularsJune 24, 1959	9879-McRae	By hanging.	July 30, 1960	9880-McCarty	By hanging.	
3. During the same period of time serious suicide attempts and superficial attempts not calculated to produce death were made in the following numbers:
Institution
Serious	Superficial attempts
attemps not calculated to produce death
Dorchester penitentiary	 3	21
St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary	 3 No statistics were kept of such
attempts.

Questions
Institution
Serious	Superficial attempts
attempts not calculated to produce death
Kingston penitentiary	
Prison for women	
Collin's bay penitentiary	
Joyceville institution	
Manitoba penitentiary	
Saskatchewan penitentiary_____
British Columbia penitentiary Total	
11	63
2	9
1	-
-	1
1	21
2	4
1	9
24	128


CONTRACT OF C.N.R. PRESIDENT
Mr. Pigeon: When was the contract of Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the Canadian National Railways, last renewed and, for how many years?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Pursuant to the provisions of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act 1936 (later amended by Canadian National Railways Act 1955), Mr. Donald Gordon was appointed president of the Canadian National Railway Company by its board of directors, such appointment being approved by the governor in council, effective January 1, 1950. The appointment is not for any specified term, but in accordance with the statutes the chief executive officer holds office "during the pleasure of the directors". Coincident with the appointment as president, and in accordance with the statutes, the governor in council appointed Mr. Gordon a director and chairman of the board. Mr. Gordon's current appointment as a director and chairman of the board of directors, pursuant to sections 6 and 8 of the Canadian National Railways Act, was approved by order in council P.C. 1963-1473, dated October 4, 1963.


CROSSING OF PETITCODIAC RIVER, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Coates: 1.	What formula was used to determine the $800,000 grant for construction of a crossing of the Petitcodiac river near Moncton under the M.M.R. Act?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the crossing in question and what type of crossing is to be constructed?
3.	Has an agreement been signed by the parties involved in the construction of the crossing and, if so, on what date was the agreement signed and who were the signators to the agreement?
4.	What will be the site of the construction of the crossing and is the property on which the crossing is to be constructed presently under the ownership of either the federal government or the government of New Brunswick?
5.	In what instances has the federal government awarded grants for river crossings within any province of Canada before a determination of cost, type of crossing or location for project been secured?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	The federal contribution is based on the amount of arable marshland which will be permanently protected from tidal flooding, and the value of such protection in providing a secure basis for full development of the area. The project was analysed according to the same formula as that used for the construction of the Annapolis river dam in Nova Scotia.
2.	$3,000,000 for a combination rock filled dam and causeway equipped with aboiteau.
3.	No.
4.	The northern end of the crossing will tie in with the Dickson boulevard in Moncton. The province is assuming full responsibility for acquiring all rights of way.
5.	None.


FEDERAL, BUILDING, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date will tenders be called for the construction of a new federal building at Amherst, N.S.?
2.	What departments of government will have quarters in the new federal building?
3.	What will be the estimated cost of this building?

Questions


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. It is intended to call tenders for an addition to the existing building during the fiscal year 1966-1967, subject to the provision of funds by parliament.
2.	We anticipate that the following departments will occupy this building: Post Office Department, Department of National Revenue, Department of Labour, unemployment insurance commission, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Department of Forestry, Department of Finance (public works treasury).
3.	The estimated cost will not be known until plans and specifications have been completed.


CONSTRUCTION OF STORAGE DAMS, ALBERTA
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	Has the Alberta government made requisition either through P.F.R.A. or through ARDA, for assistance in construction of a water storage dam near the town of Hanna on Fox lake, so as to enhance the water conditions in the area?
2.	Has the Alberta government made a request under P.F.R.A. or ARDA for a dam (known as Cameron dam) north of Youngstown, Alberta, on Sounding creek?
3.	Has the Alberta government water resources board granted P.F.R.A. permission for construction on Blood Indian creek, south of Youngstown and, if so, when will construction on this project begin?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. The government of Alberta requested, under P.F.R.A., assistance in the construction of a water storage dam near the town of Hanna, Alberta.
2.	The government of Alberta requested that a preliminary investigation be made of the feasibility of the Sounding creek project. The report was completed by P.F.R.A. in June 1962 and was forwarded to the government of Alberta.
3.	The Alberta water resources board has granted permission for the construction of the Blood Indian creek community water storage project. Tenders are being called and construction is expected to commence early next year.


ISODELE BELFONT-DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Have any deportation proceedings been instituted against one Isodele Belfont (nee Dreckman)?
2.	Has any representation been made by the government of the United States regarding Isodele Belfont?
3.	What are the reasons for the deportation proceedings?
4.	Is the government aware that Isodele Belfont is a married woman and is her husband included in

the said proceedings, or are there separate proceedings relating to him?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	This woman has been ordered deported under section 19(l)(e)(ix) of the Immigration Act in that she returned to Canada contrary to the provisions of the Immigration Act after a deportation order had been made against her. Mrs. Belfont has entered an appeal against this order and her case is being considered by the immigration appeal board.
4.	Yes, the government is aware that Isodele Belfont is a married woman. Her husband is a Canadian citizen and is not subject to the deportation provisions of the Immigration Act.


SALARY OF CHAPLAIN, FEDERAL PENITENTIARY
Mr. Matheson: 1.	What Is the annual salary of a chaplain serving in a federal penitentiary?
2.	Does a chaplain receive a residence in addition to salary?
3.	What amenities, if any, are provided to a chaplain free of cost?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Chaplains serving in a federal penitentiary are paid $5,400 per annum if employed on a full time basis and $3,500 per annum if employed on a part time basis.
2.	No.
3.	None.


DEATH OF MAPLE TREES
Mr. Matheson: 1.	Has the government any statistics respecting the dying of maple trees during the past several years?
2.	Has any study been undertaken to counteract maple decline and, if so, with what results?


Maurice Sauvé: 1.	A conspicuous dieback of maples has occurred in recent years throughout southern Ontario. Sample plots have been under surveillance for several years by the Department of Forestry and these show that the condition is restricted to exposed trees along highways, secondary roads, and streets in urban areas and does not extend into natural stands of maple. The severity of dieback varies from year to year and between areas but observations in 1964 show that a high proportion of the roadside trees are in various stages of decline at locations in the lake Erie, lake-Huron, Lindsay, and Tweed forest districts.

2.	Studies to date indicate that a number of factors are involved including: drought, chemicals used along highways to control dust, ice, and weeds; low winter temperatures when there is deficient snow cover; and the age of trees. Studies are in progress to determine the relative importance of these factors. Once this is established, appropriate means of prevention or treatment can be developed.


EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE CORPORATION
Mr. Basford: 1.	What are the names, addresses and principal occupations of the directors, executive officers and members of the advisory council of the Exports Credits Insurance Corporation?
2.	With regard to cash financing agreements made under section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act, from January 1, 1964 to the present, either by Canada alone, or as part of a joint venture, or international consortia, what are the (a) countries and importers (b) products financed (c) name and address of exporter, and (d) amount authorized to be financed by Canada?
3.	Where in Canada does the Export Credits Insurance Corporation maintain branch offices?
4.	What factors militate against a branch office of E.C.I.C. being located in Vancouver, B.C.?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1.	Directors: J. H. Warren, Ottawa, Ontario, deputy minister of trade and commerce (chairman); R. B. Bryce, Ottawa, Ontario, deputy minister of finance; L. C. Audette, Ottawa, Ontario, chairman tariff board; A. F. W. Plum-ptre, Ottawa, Ontario, assistant deputy minister of finance; A. E. Ritchie, Ottawa, Ontario, under secretary of state for external affairs; D. Harvey, Orleans, Ontario, assistant deputy minister of trade and commerce; H. T. Aitken, Ottawa, Ontario, president and general manager of E.C.I.C.
Executive officers: H. T. Aitken, Ottawa, Ontario, president and general manager;
Questions
A. W. Thomas, Ottawa, Ontario, vice president; T. Chase-Casgrain, Ottawa, Ontario, secretary.
Advisory council: Hon. J. V. Clyne, Vancouver, B.C., chairman of the board of the MacMillan, Bloedel and Powell River Limited; G. L. Harrold, Calgary, Alberta, president of Alberta wheat pool; A. T. Lambert, Toronto, Ontario, president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank; Paul H. Leman, Montreal, Quebec, executive vice president of the Aluminum Company of Canada; F. C. Mannix, Calgary, Alberta, president and chairman of the board of Mannix Co. Ltd.; A. F. Mayne, Montreal, Quebec, executive vice president of the Royal Bank of Canada; Ian F. McRae, Toronto, Ontario, chairman of the board of Canadian General Electric Company Limited; P. A. Ouimet, Montreal, Quebec, legal adviser to Iron Ore Co. of Canada; C. Ritchie, Montreal, Quebec, vice president and general manager of Montreal Engineering Company Limited; Fletcher S. Smith, Halifax, Nova Scotia, A. M. Smith & Company Limited; H. S. Sutherland, Montreal, Quebec, president of Shawinigan Chemicals Limited; R. B. Taylor, Hamilton, Ontario, vice president and treasurer of The Steel Company of Canada Limited; F. Homer Zwicker, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, president and managing director of Zwicker & Company Limited.
2.	Please see page 11202 for answer to question No. 2.
3.	Montreal and Toronto.
4.	The volume of contact work in Vancouver does not justify the salaries and expenses involved in maintaining a branch office in Vancouver. The corporation is represented by the west coast office of the Department of Trade and Commerce in Vancouver.


FINANCING AGREEMENTS MADE UNDER SECTION 21A OF THE EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT FROM JANUARY 1, 1964
[Stage Direction]
Country	Importer	Order in council (Date of contract)	Products financed	Exporter	Amount authorized	Type of financing ventureChile	Compania Manufacturer de Papeles y Cartones	P.C. 1964-1541 (Oct. 16, 1964)	Pulp mill equipment and engineering	H. A. Simons (International) Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.	t 2,820,000	Joint venture IADB-Canada (addition to previous financing agreement)India	Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.	P.C. 1964-282 (June 11, 1964)	Foil mill and smelter equipment	Aluminum Company of Canada Ltd., Montreal, Que.	$ 900,000	Consortium commitment (addition to previous financing agreement)India	Hindustan Steel Ltd	P.C. 1964-1314 (Oct. 16, 1964)	Industrial furnaces	Amco Furnace Contractors Ltd. Rexdale, Ontario.	$ 1,960,000	Consortium commitment (balance of equipment for steel mill supplied and financed by Japan)India	Department of Atomic Energy	P.C. 1963-1763 (April 27, 1964)	CANDU nuclear reactor and engineering services	Montreal Engineering Co. Ltd., Montreal, and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Ottawa.	$ 37,000,000	Consortium commitmentIndia	Cominco Binani Zinc Limited	P.C. 1963-920 (May 27, 1964)	Zinc smelter and equipment	Consolidated Mining and Smelting Co. of Canada Ltd. Trail, B.C.	$ 1,600,000	Consortium commitmentIndia	National Aeronautical Laboratory	P.C. 1964-836 (July 2, 1964)	Trisonic wind tunnel	Canadian Vickers Ltd., Montreal, Que.	$ 4,200,000	Consortium commitmentMexico	Fabricas de Papel Tuxtepec S.A.	P.C. 1964-456 (May 12, 1964) Services	Paper mill equipment and engineering	Parsons & Whittemore (Contractors) Ltd., Montreal, and Sandwell and Company, Vancouver, B.C.	t 2,973,000	Canadian aloneMexico	Ferrocarril del Pacifico S.A.	P.C. 1964-1275 (Aug. 31, 1964)	Steel rails	Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, Montreal, Que.	$ 3,013,000	Canadian alonePhilippines	Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.	P.C. 1964-984 (Sept. 22, 1964)	Telecommunications equipment	Automatic Electric (Canada) Limited, Brockville, Ont.	t 13,500,000	Canadian aloneTotal	$ 67,966,000	11202	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1954, what is the name of each medical doctor who attended Indians on the Millbrook Indian reserve in Nova Scotia and the dates upon which each such doctor assumed his duties with respect to the said reserve?
2.	Are Indians on the said reserve free to attend a doctor of their own choosing and, if so, will any medical bills so incurred be paid by any branch or agency of the government?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The following are the physicians designated by the Department of National Health and Welfare for attendance to the medical needs of the Indians of the Millbrook reserve near Truro, Nova Scotia: Doctor J. B. Reid Sr., from world war II until his death in the fall of 1954; Doctor J. B. Reid Jr., 1954 to December 31, 1958; Doctor R. F. Ross, January 1, 1959 to September 30, 1963; Doctor J. B. Reid Jr., October 1, 1963 to the present.
2.	Indians, like any other Canadian citizens, are free to make whatsoever arrangements they choose for their own medical care. However, when a Canadian Indian wishes to receive necessary medical care at public expense, he is expected to follow the arrangements which have been made by the Department of National Health and Welfare. It should be noted that in emergencies and other unusual situations a certain amount of leeway is permitted the Indian in obtaining urgently required medical attention.


REPAIRS TO C.C.G.S. &quot;WOLFE&quot;
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Were tenders called for repairs on C.C.G.S. Wolfe?
2.	What firms were asked to bid and what were the amounts of their bids?
3.	To what firm was the contract awarded?
4.	In what period of time will the work be completed?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. Yes.
2.	Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. Ltd., $13,146; Purdy Bros., Halifax, $14,904; Ferguson Industries Ltd., Pictou, N.S., $19,436; Steel & Engine Products, Liverpool, N.S., $20,558; Halifax Shipyards, $22,810.
3.	Saint John Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. Ltd.
4.	Eight days.


REFIT OF C.C.G.S. &quot;SAUREL&quot;
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Were tenders called for the supplementary to annual refit of C.C.G.S. Saurel?
Questions
2.	Where had the C.C.G.S. Saurel been operating during the last six months?
3.	What firms were asked to tender and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	To what firm was the contract awarded?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1, 3 and
4.	The need for supplementary work on any particular refit becomes apparent only after the ship is in the hands of the commercial firm doing the work and the machinery is opened up or the hull exposed. In order to return the ship to operational service, it is, therefore, necessary to carry out immediately any additional work thus revealed and this must be arranged for by negotiation as an extra to the original contract. The original contract was let by tender to J. R. Weir Ltd., Montreal.
2. Upper St. Lawrence river.


REPAIRS TO C.C.G.S. &quot;EIDER&quot;
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Were tenders called for supplementary refit and supplementary to dry-docking damage repairs to C.C.G.S. Eider?
2.	What type of ship is the C.C.G.S. Eider and where has it been operating during the last six months?
3.	What firms were asked to tender and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	To what firm was the contract awarded?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1, 3 and
4.	The need for supplementary work on any particular refit becomes apparent only after the ship is in the hands of the commercial firm doing the work and the machinery is opened up or the hull exposed. In order to return the ship to operational service, it is, therefore, necessary to carry out immediately any additional work thus revealed and this must be arranged for by negotiation as an extra to the original contract. The original contract was let by tender to Marine Industries Ltd., Sorel, P.Q.
2. (a) Northern supply vessel, (b) Hudson bay and Labrador coast.


REFIT OF H.M.C.S. &quot;ALGONQUIN&quot;
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Were tenders called for the refit, repairs or conversion of H.M.C.S. Algonquin and, if not, to what firm was this work allocated?
2.	If tenders were called, what were the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender for refit or conversion of H.M.C.S. Algonquin?
3.	To what firm was the contract awarded and is the contract amount a firm price?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1 and 2. Tenders were not called for the refit, repairs or conversion of H.M.C.S. Algonquin.

Questions
This work was allocated to Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, P.Q.
3.	The contract was awarded in November 1964 to Marine Industries Limited. The contract provides a target incentive with ceiling price for labour and materials, and a firm price for overhead and fee.


EFFECT OF INSECTICIDE PHOSPHAMIDON ON WILDLIFE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is the government aware of surveys made for the Canadian wildlife service on the effects of the use of the insecticide phosphamidon in New Brunswick?
2.	Did the survey report that a large number of birds were killed in the area sprayed by phosphamidon?
3.	Is the government considering the banning of the use of phosphamidon at least until further testing is done?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Yes, Dr. C. D. Fowle, head, department of biology, York University, Toronto, carried out surveys for the Canadian wildlife service on the use of phosphamidon in New Brunswick in 1964. Dr. Fowle has submitted a preliminary report, the contents of which were presented to the interdepartmental committee on forest spraying operations on October 27.
2.	The data obtained by Dr. Fowle indicated a marked reduction in bird song and activity and in numbers of birds seen following the spraying of phosphamidon at the rate of one half pound per three quarters of a United States gallon per acre. Numbers of dead and sick birds were found by the investigators as well as by residents of the area; however, some of the sick birds recovered.
3.	The government regarded the use of phosphamidon in 1964 as experimental. Results of the 1964 experiments suggest that phosphamidon applied at the lesser rate of one quarter pound per three quarters of a United States gallon per acre or phosphamidon plus a penetrant applied at one half pound per acre do not seriously affect bird or fish populations. The governmental agencies responsible for assessing the effects of forest spraying operations in New Brunswick are presently considering the 1965 program; however, no decision has yet been made.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS TO G. A. BOULET LTD.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	How many contracts has G. A. Boulet, Limitoe St. Tite, Co. Laviolette, P.Q., received from the Department of National Defence in 1962, 1963 and 1964?

2.	Was G. A. Boulet, Limitee the low bidder on all such contracts and, if not, what was the bid submitted by G. A. Boulet, Limitee, and who submitted the lowest bid and for what amount?
3.	What contracts is G. A. Boulet, Limitee working on at the present time?
4.	Is a strike in progress at the G. A. Boulet, Limitee plant?
5.	Does the government know if the reason for the strike is the refusal of G. A. Boulet, Limitee to bargain with their employees?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. 1962, 1; 1963, 4; 1964, nil.
2.	Yes.
3.	Contract GK.18-351044 for dress shoes, contract GK.20-351915 for dress shoes.
4.	Not at the present time. It is understood there was a strike at this plant between August 20 and September 11, 1964.
5.	This dispute is under provincial legislation. To the best of our knowledge some bargaining did take place prior to the strike but was terminated by the company.


TELEVISION STATION CFCF, MONTREAL- PROMISES ON OBTAINING LICENCE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Montreal (CFCF) promise the B.B.G. that if successful in getting the t.v. rights for Montreal they would devote certain percentages of their programming to educational programs, children's programs, public affairs programs, drama programs and, if so (a) what percentages of programming were allocated to each of the above types of program (b) since beginning operation, what proportion of CFCF's programming has actually been devoted to the above types of program?
2.	Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Montreal (CFCF) promise the B.B.G. that if successful in getting the t.v. rights for Montreal they would devote a certain percentage of their prime viewing time to programs qualifying as having Canadian content and, if so (a) what percentage of Canadian content programs did they promise to provide (b) what percentage of Canadian content programming has station CFCF provided since they began operations?
3.	Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Montreal (CFCF) promise the B.B.G. that if successful in getting the t.v. rights for Montreal they would devote a specific percentage of their programming to local live Canadian programming and, if so (a) how much time and what percentage of the total was promised to the B.B.G. (b) how much local live Canadian programming has station CFCF provided since it began operations?
4.	Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Montreal (CFCF) promise the B.B.G. that if successful in getting the t.v. rights for Montreal they would devote their morning televising, if any, to some form of educational television in association with Sir George Williams University and, if so (a) is station CFCF televising in the mornings (b) how much educational television has station CFCF televised since it began operations?


IS. 1964
[Stage Direction]
Answer: 1. In their brief the applicants indicated that they planned to devote certain percentages of their programming to educational, children's, public affairs, and drama programs, (a) The following percentages were allocated: Educational, 7.8 per cent; children's, 14.8 per cent; public affairs, 5.8 per cent; drama, 38.7 per cent, (b) The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.
2.	The applicants proposed to devote a certain percentage of their prime viewing time to programs having Canadian content, (a) The applicants proposed 55.7 per cent, (b) The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested. The station has, however, continuously met the regulations of the board governing Canadian content in prime time.
3.	(a) In their brief the applicants indicated that they planned to devote 53.6 per cent of their programming to local live Canadian programming. (b) The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.
4.	No. In their presentation at the public hearing the applicants made the following statement:
As to what use we might put such morning time on a permanent basis when we would expand back into the morning hours, I don't think there is any category-any single category-under which that program would fall. Morning time would lend itself to, and we have had discussions already, particularly with Sir George Williams University-it would lend itself very well to some form of educational television. As a matter of fact Sir George has been studying with some interest the experience of the group in California which is, in fact, doing television education on a very formal basis, and presenting courses for which credits are approved. We would see morning programming as being general programming, family programming, and with some educational material.
(a) Yes. (b) The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.

Mr. Douglas: 1.	What was the rate of pay for cleaner service men at the SAGE site in North Bay as of January, 1964?
2.	Have any people employed as a cleaner serv-
Questions
ice man received less than the amount advertised in civil service circulars?
3.	Did civil service circulars advertising the position of cleaner service man indicate a wage increase every six months until a maximum was reached?
4.	Have all cleaner service men received their wage increase at the end of each six month period?
Hon.	Maurice	Lamonlagne	(Secretary ofState): The following information in answer to parts 1 and 3 of question No. 2,338 has been supplied by the civil service commission and relates to competition 63-0-617, cleaning	service	men,	government	departmen in	January	1964	were	$2,900,	$3,050,
$3,200, $3,350, $3,500. These rates were in effect from October 1, 1963.
1.	The salary rates for all cleaning service
men in	January	1964	were	$2,900,	$3,050,
$3,200, $3,350, $3,500. These rates were in effect from October 1, 1963.
2.	No.
3.	A civil service circular advertising positions of cleaning service man in departments at North Bay, indicated the salary as $2,850 to $3,300 with semi-annual increases up to $3,150 and one annual increase to the maximum of $3,300. This circular was issued prior to October 1, 1963, and therefore did not quote the rates mentioned in answer 1, above.
4.	No, one cleaning service man was denied an increase October 1, 1964 as he was not performing the duties of his position satisfactorily.


PAYMENTS UNDER CONTRACT, MOORE'S TAXI. WINNIPEG
Mr. Cowan: What are the dates of payments and the amounts received each time by the Department of Transport from Moore's Taxi Ltd. under the contract with the Department of Transport covering ground service transportation between Stevenson field and Winnipeg, from April 1961 to November 1, 1964?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1962	1963	1964January	$ 500.00	$808.83	$773.22February	500.00	660.95	637.64March	500.00	716.14	713.87April	675.56	679.02	696.49May	733.28	816.94	674.32June	864.69	879.21	710.89July	865.38	746.63	709.32August	919.86	826.64	766.65September	1,075.78	945.70	864.60October	894.05	883.24	November	730.89	712.95	December	728.11	754.29	
Questions


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES, EGG ISLAND, B.C.
Mr. Howard: All of this lumber reached Egg island except 47 sheets of sheathing.
3.	The sheets of sheathing were retained at the Prince Rupert workshop for the prefabrication of a small supply and storage building which will be delivered to the light-station next year.


DECOMMISSIONING OF R.C.N. ESCORTS. HALIFAX
Mr. Coates: Have any of the ocean escorts of the Royal Canadian Navy based in Halifax been issued decommissioning pennants and. if so. how many and when will they be decommissioned?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Five ocean escorts of which two are being converted have been paid off since 1 January 1964. In the same period one new destroyer escort and one converted destroyer escort entered operational service and an additional new destroyer escort will be commissioned on 19 December 1964.


INCINERATOR TENDERS, ANIMAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, HULL, QUE.
Mr. Loney: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the tenderers in connection with the tender for alterations to incinerator and treatment tank, animal diseases research institute, Hull, Quebec?
2.	What was the price quoted by each tenderer?
3.	Was the lowest tender accepted and, if not, for what reason?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1 and 2. Russ Wilson Company Ltd., Ottawa, $15,495; Beaudoin Construction Ltd., Ottawa, $15,873; Deljac Construction Co. Ltd., Ottawa, $15,950; A Lanctot Construction Co., Ottawa, $23,735.
3. The tenders are being reviewed and a contract award has, therefore, not yet been made.


INVITATION TO FINANCE MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Finance receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Lawrence T. Pennell: No.


INVITATION TO NORTHERN AFFAIRS MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources receive an invitation to visit
IMr. Cantin.]

Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, it so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Arthur Laing: Yes, this invitation was received from the city of Prince Rupert.
The reply made by telegram on November 3, 1964 is as follows:
Mayor P. J. Lester City Hall
Prince Rupert, B.C.
Regret I cannot be with you on November 5 to welcome one hundredth ship to visit Prince Rupert harbour this season. It is an important bench mark in the development of your city which has an assured and prosperous role in the life of British Columbia. Five years from November 5 I think you will see a season with two hundred ships. Regret none of my colleagues in federal cabinet were able to be present. Kind regards.
Arthur Laing, Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


INVITATION TO LABOUR MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Labour receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No.


INVITATION TO FISHERIES MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Fisheries receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, from the city of Prince Rupert. Reply expressed appreciation for invitation; regret of inability to attend because of previous engagements; and congratulations on the occasion.


INVITATION TO HEALTH MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year
Questions
and, if so, from whom was the invitation received
and what reply was given thereto?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


INVITATION TO JUSTICE MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Justice receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Guy Favreau: No.


INVITATION TO FORESTRY MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Forestry receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Maurice Sauvé: No.


OPENING OF AIRPORT TERMINAL, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: Has a date been established for the official opening of the new airport terminal in London, Ontario, and. if so (a) what is the date (b) who will officiate?


Jean-Charles Cantin: No date has been established and no plans have been made as yet for the official opening of the new airport terminal in London, Ontario.


CONTRACT TO MOORE'S TAXI, WINNIPEG AIRPORT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	When was the contract between the Department of Transport and Moore's Taxi Ltd., giving that company exclusive rights to pick up passengers at the Winnipeg international airport signed?
2.	Were tenders called before the contract was awarded and, if so, how many companies tendered and, if not, for what reasons were tenders not called?
3.	What are the terms of the contract?
4.	Has the Department of Transport received any complaints that the provisions of the contract are not being lived up to?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. October 1962.

Questions
2.	The company had been operating the concession under authority of the Winnipeg-St. James airport commission. Since the company already had a licence from the provincial motor carrier board and on the strength of a strong recommendation from the air lines the department negotiated the present contract with the company.
3.	The contract is for a period of five years effective January 1, 1962. Under the contract the company paid the department a fixed fee of $500 per month for the period January 1 to March 31, 1962; thereafter the company paid the department 10 per cent of gross revenue. Recently the department renegotiated the payment clause whereby the company will pay the department the following fixed annual amounts: 1964, $10,000; 1965, $11,000; 1966, $12,000.
4.	No.


ENGAGEMENT CALENDARS PRODUCED BY QUEEN'S PRINTER
Mr. Pascoe: 1.	How many engagement calendars for 1965 have been produced by the queen's printer?
2.	What is the price thereof?
3.	Have order cards been sent out to industries across the country to encourage sales thereof?
4.	How many orders have been received to date?
5.	What is the justification for a government department competing with private industry in the production and sale of such calendars?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. 10,000.
2.	$2.50.
3.	Yes.
4.	6,000.
5.	The production of these engagement calendars is one of the means taken by the national gallery of Canada to make its collection known to the Canadian public.


VANCOUVER ISLAND SECTION, TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Barnett: 1.	What is the total mileage of the trans-Canada highway on Vancouver island?
2.	What is the total cost to date?
3.	Of this, what is the total paid or approved for payment by the federal government?
4.	Is the Vancouver island section of the highway completed and, if not (a) what is the estimated additional cost of completion, and (b) the federal government's share?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. 69.31 miles.
2.	Total shareable cost to date is $13,972,436.70.
3.	Total payment made by Canada to date is $6,986,218.35.
[Mr. Cantin.l
4.	The Vancouver island section of the trans-Canada highway is completed.


STUDY OF CRAB FISHERY, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Barnett: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries investigated and come to any conclusion concerning the possibilities of establishing a commercial fishery for deep sea red crab along the continental shelf in the waters offshore from Nova Scotia southward?
2.	If not, is such a study contemplated, either by the department itself or in conjunction with the U.S. bureau of commercial fisheries and, if such a study has revealed possibilities for a commercial fishery, what steps are being taken to assist the establishment of a deep trawling operation?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Deep sea red crab is unknown. The spider crab exists in gulf of St. Lawrence waters. The department is experimenting in use of various types of traps for taking of this species, particularly in the vicinity of Magdalen islands and Anticosti island, with the object of lengthening the season of operation and earnings of lobster fishermen. The common rock crab is indigenous to inshore waters from Labrador to South Carolina. No investigation as to its commercial potential is being carried on.
2. Answered by No. 1.


FEDERAL BUILDING, JOLIETTE, QUE.
Mr. Pigeon: Does the Department of Public Works Intend to enlarge the federal building in Joliette (post office) or to erect a new building and if, so. when, and what will be the approximate cost of the work?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The matter is under study.


EMPLOYMENT FOR PERSONNEL OF JOLIETTE REGIMENT
Mr. Pigeon: Does the government Intend to provide employment for persons who worked as guards or
in other capacities for the Joliette regiment prior to its disbandment?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: The disbandment of the Joliette regiment will affect 16 civilian watchmen and three caretakers part time. The watchmen are casual employees employed under section 88 of the civil service regulations and are not eligible for transfer into other positions in the civil service.
The caretakers part time will, in all likelihood, be kept on pending termination of

leases. It is not possible to offer them alternative employment at this time because of the location of these armouries. Their names will be placed on civil service commission lay-off lists and they will be given consideration by the commission for re-instatement should suitable vacancies occur.


RIDING MOUNTAIN PARK-HAY AND GRAZING PERMITS
Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	How many special hay permits were granted for the Riding Mountain national park, in 1964?
2.	How many regular permits were granted in 1963 and 1964?
3.	What was the permit price per ton in 1962, 1963 and 1964?
4.	How many cattle grazing permits were granted in the Riding Mountain national park in 1962. 1963 and 1964?
5.	What were the grazing fees in 1962, 1963 and 1964?


Arthur Laing: 1. Thirty one.
2.	Fifty one in 1963 and 38 in 1964.
3.	Fifty cents in 1962 and 1963. Fifty cents from Jan. 1 to July 15, 1964. Five dollars since July 16, 1964.
4.	Sixty one in 1962, 59 in 1963 and 60 in 1964.
5.	The grazing fees charged in 1962, 1963 and 1964 were as follows:
For each head of cattle per month, 25 cents.
For each horse not owned by a person licensed to operate a livery in a park, per month or fraction thereof, 50 cents.
For each horse owned by a person licensed to operate a livery in the park, per month or fraction thereof, 50 cents.


MILITIA PERSONNEL
Mr. Doucett: 1.	What Is the total number of personnel In the militia of Canada?
2.	What is the total number of personnel in the militia in each province?
3.	What is the total number of units of the militia in each province?
4.	What is the total number of officers In the militia in each province?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. 47,660.
2. British Columbia, 3,613; Alberta, 4,087; Saskatchewan, 2,420; Manitoba, 2,078; Ontario, 17,751; Quebec, 9,852; New Brunswick, 2,924; Nova Scotia, 3,541; Prince Edward Island, 550; Newfoundland, 798; Yukon Territory, 46.
Questions
3.	Excluding militia group headquarters, medical and dental advisory staffs: British Columbia, 25; Alberta, 29; Saskatchewan, 19; Manitoba, 17; Ontario, 99; Quebec, 63; New Brunswick, 17; Nova Scotia, 22; Prince Edward Island, 3; Newfoundland, 3; Yukon Territory, 1.
4.	British Columbia, 472; Alberta, 631; Saskatchewan, 209; Manitoba, 308; Ontario, 2,454; Quebec, 1,420; New Brunswick, 305; Nova Scotia, 433; Prince Edward Island, 68; Newfoundland, 84; Yukon Territory, 6.


INCREASED COST OF FRANKED MAIL
Mr. Webb: 1.	How many governmental departments have been assessed an increased amount for the carrying of franked mail?
2.	What is the total amount of this increase? Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):
1.	Twenty.
2.	$708,000.


R.R. NO. 2, COLEMAN, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	On what date were tenders called for the conveyance of mails on Coleman R.R. No. 2 (P.E.I.) ?
2.	What are the names of persons submitting tenders and the amount of each tender?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	When will his duties commence?
5.	How much notice was given to the present contractor?
6.	What is the usual notice period of such contracts?
7.	What were the reasons for making temporary arrangements for delivery after contract expiry?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1.	Twenty first August 1964.
2.	Miss Verna Irene Wallace, Coleman, $825; Hugh Dodd MacPhee, Coleman, $894; Lome A. Lockhart, Coleman, $960; Robert Bruce MacNaught, Coleman, $984.
3.	Miss Verna Irene Wallace.
4.	As soon as arrangements can be completed.
5.	Notice was given on the 20 August 1964.
6.	There is no specific requirement regarding the giving of notice where an expiring contract is not being renewed.
7.	Due to inability to complete new contract arrangements in time.


BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION, INGONISH BEACH. N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Questions


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: None.


DREDGJNG OF HARBOUR, INGONISH BEACH, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: 
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Consideration will be given when the report of a survey, presently under way, has been received.


DREDGING OF CLYBURN RIVER, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is it the intention of the government to carry out a dredging program at the Clyburn river, Victoria co., N.S., for the benefit of the fishermen concerned.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Consideration will be given when the report of a survey, presently under way, has been received.


SKIDWAY CONSTRUCTION, CLYBURN RIVER, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is it the intention of the government to construct a skidway at the Clyburn river, Victoria co., N.S., for the benefit of the fishermen concerned?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No.


ROYAL COMMISSIONS APPOINTED UNDER MR. ST. LAURENT
Mr. Nugent: 1.	How many royal commissions were appointed during the term of office of Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent?
2.	What were the names or subject matters of each of the said commissions?


John (Jack) Davis: 1 and 2. There were 21 royal commissions, as follows:	Cases
where revocation of citizenship is under consideration. Transportation. National development in the arts, letters and sciences. Floods in Red river valley, Manitoba. Fire damage to towns of Rimouski and Cabano, P.Q. Rents payable on leased lands in townsites and subdivisions in Banff and Jasper national parks and minimum value of buildings which may be erected therein. Claims arising out of world war II (Mr. Chief Justice Ilsley). South Saskatchewan river project. Staking of areas and application for permits re exploring

petroleum products by Sun Oil Co. and California Standard Co. Claims arising out of world war II (Mr. Chief Justice Campbell). Criminal law relating to defence of insanity. Criminal sexual psychopaths. Quartz mining and placer mining in Yukon Territory. Agreed charges under part IV of the Transport Act. Patents, copyright, trade marks. Humber river valley flood. Coasting trade in Canada. Long term prospects of the Canadian economy. Broadcasting in Canada. Dispute between Canadian Pacific Railway and brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen. Financial position of Newfoundland.


WAGE INCREASES, BEDFORD MAGAZINE, HALIFAX
Mr. Coates: When can workers at the Bedford magazine, Halifax county, expect increases in wages that are presently under review since workers at H.M.C. Dockyard have received consideration in this regard?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The matter is under consideration and when any decision is reached, the workers at the Bedford magazine will be advised in the usual manner.


PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PURCHASE OF CHINAWARE
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Since May 1, 1963, did the Department of Public Works purchase any chinaware and, if so (a) was it of Canadian or foreign origin (b) what was the total amount of purchases in each case?
2.	If the department did purchase chinaware of foreign origin, for what reasons was Canadian made chinaware not purchased?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Yes. (a) Partly of Canadian origin, partly of foreign origin, (b) Canadian, $56,634.46; foreign, $29,623.04.
2. Because purchases were for replacements of broken items originally purchased in a foreign country and not obtainable elsewhere or because the china required by the user department is not available in Canada.


CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PURCHASE OF CHINAWARE
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Since May 1, 1963, did the Department of Citizenship and Immigration purchase any china-ware and, if so (a) was it of Canadian or foreign origin (b) what was the total amount of purchases in each case?
2.	If the department did purchase chinaware of foreign origin, for what reasons was Canadian made chinaware not purchased?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes. (a) Both, (b) Canadian, $98; foreign, $596.48.*
2. Tenders are obtained from hotel and restaurant suppliers and the lowest bid is accepted.
*U.K. manufacture.


OTTAWA-FRANCHISES FOR SERVICE TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Have representations been made to the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act, requesting investigation of franchises by milk, bread and cleaning firms in Ottawa apartment buildings and, if so, how many such representations have been received?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes. There has been one question in the House of Commons inquiring whether an investigation had been undertaken and a number of informal inquiries from representatives of news media. Of the latter, one could be considered as a representation.


KINGSTON PENITENTIARY PSYCHOLOGIST POSITION
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Regarding the position of psychologist, vacant at the Kingston penitentiaries since April 15. 1959 (a) what salary was offered for this position in 1959 (b) what salary is now being offered, and (c) has the government considered increasing the salary offered?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: (a)	$4,830-
$5,370; (b) $7,540-$8,440; (c) no, not at the present, since the last salary increase was granted on July 29, 1964.


EDMONTON, ALTA.-SHORTAGE OF STEEL FOR FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has a delay occurred, or is one anticipated, in the construction of the postal terminal building in Edmonton, Alberta as a result of a shortage of structural steel and, if so, to what extent will construction be delayed?
2.	When was it first indicated that the structural steel of the type required was in short supply and could not be obtained in Canada in accordance with the construction schedule for this building?
3.	What efforts are being made, if any, to obtain structural steel from other sources than in Canada?
4.	Are there any penalties provided in this particular construction contract for delays resulting from the shortage of structural steel or other major building material?
Questions


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. No.
2.	At the commencement of the contract the steel supplier indicated that there was a possibility of a delay because of short supply of some sections. However, this delay did not materialize.
3.	None.
4.	There is a provision in all contracts for penalties for delays, but not specifically relating to the shortage of structural steel or other major building materials.


BAY ST. LAWRENCE, N.S.-RESCUE EQUIPMENT ON WHARF
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to renew the life ring and throw ropes on the wharf at Bay St. Lawrence, Victoria county, N.S. and. if not, for what reason?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This matter is now under investigation.


BAY ST. LAWRENCE, N.S.-SHEATHING ON BREAKWATER
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to place corner sheathing on the west breakwater at Bay St. Lawrence, Victoria county, N.S. and. if not, for what reason?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This matter is now under investigation.


BAY ST. LAWRENCE, N.S.-'WHARF CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to construct two wharves in what is known as the inner pond at Bay St. Lawrence, Victoria county, N.S., for the convenience of the fishermen in that area and, if not, for what reason?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This matter is now under investigation.


BAY ST. LAWRENCE, N.S.-BREAKWATER TIMBERS AND LADDERS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to renew cap timbers and ladders on the west breakwater at Bay St. Lawrence, Victoria county, N.S. and, if not. for what reason?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Work will be undertaken next year.

Questions


BAY ST. LAWRENCE, N.S.-RETAINING WALL
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to construct a retaining wall along the east side of the channel at Bay St. Lawrence, N.S. and, if not, for what reason?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This matter is now under investigation.


BAY ST. LAWRENCE, N.S.-CHANNEL DREDGING
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to dredge the channel at bay St. Lawrence to a depth of six feet of water at low tide and continue up to points where the craft of the fishermen who use this locale are moored, and. if not, for what reason?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This matter is now under investigation.


REMOVAL OF MEANS TEST FOR VETERANS ALLOWANCE
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to removing the means test from persons qualifying for war veterans allowance at the age of 65?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No.


CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY MAX AND ADOLPH SEFKIND
Mr. Maclnnis: Arising out of the investigation into bankruptcy frauds now in progress in Montreal, has the government secured any information showing that the records and documents connected with bankruptcy proceedings by Max and Adolph Sefkind and/or their companies disclose contributions for campaign purposes to any cabinet ministers or other members of parliament, and, if so, to whom and in what amounts?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The government does not have, on its own files, nor has it secured, arising out of investigation into bankruptcy frauds now in progress in Montreal, any information showing that the records and documents connected with bankruptcy proceedings by Max and Adolph Sefkind and/or their companies disclose contributions for campaign purposes to any cabinet ministers or other members of parliament.


ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW DRUG MANUFACTURING COMPANIES
Mr. Malher: Do regulations administered by the food and drug directorate of the Department of National [Mr. Deschatelets.l
Health and Welfare, the Department of Industry or any other federal agency control the establishment of new drug manufacturing companies and the sale of their products and, if not, is consideration being given to the inauguration of a licensing system making the registration of such firms mandatory?


Maurice Lamontagne: In so far as the Department of Industry is concerned there are no regulations that control the establishment of new drug manufacturing companies or the sale of their products and the department is not aware of such regulations administered by other federal agencies. No consideration is being given by the Department of Industry at the present time to the inauguration of a licensing system.
There are no regulations administered by the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare which control the establishment of new drug manufacturing companies. However, drug manufacturing facilities and control, as well as the drug products, are subject to the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. Certain injectables, such as liver extract injectable and insulin, listed in schedule C to the Food and Drugs Act, and other products such as living vaccines for oral or parenteral use and antibiotics for parenteral use, listed in schedule D to the Food and Drugs Act, may only be manufactured by the manufacturer to whom a licence has been issued.
Consideration is being given to a system under which it would be mandatory for all pharmaceutical manufacturers to supply the food and drug directorate with a list of all the drug products which they manufacture.


RIVERS, MAN., TAXI STRIP-QUALITY OF CONCRETE
Mr. Dinsdale: In connection with the contract to construct a taxi strip at C.J.A.T.C., Rivers, Manitoba, awarded to Tallman Construction Co. Ltd., of Winnipeg, Manitoba, was construction halted temporarily because of the inferior quality of the concrete mix?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned, Defence Construction (1951) Limited reports that there have been no delays for any reason whatever in connection with the construction work being carried out by Tallman Construction Co. Ltd., on this project.


VITAMIN D FOOD SUPPLEMENTS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1. Does the government exert any control over

the amounts of vitamin D added as supplements to foodstuffs and, if so, what limits are imposed?
2. Is the government conducting or supporting research into the cumulative effects on humans of excessive ingestion of vitamin D and, if so, what have been the findings to date?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes. Present regulations of the Department of National Health and Welfare require that if vitamin D is added to foods, the amount thereof must be not less than 400 international units nor more than 800 international units in a reasonable daily intake. Recent amendments to the regulations have reduced the number of foods to which vitamin D may be added.
2. No.


EFFECT OF VITAMIN D ON PREGNANT WOMEN
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Is the government conducting or supporting research into the relationship between mental retardation and excessive intake of vitamin D by pregnant women and, if so, at which institutions, and under whose direction is such research being conducted?
2.	What have been the findings of such research?
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): 1. No,
2. See answer 1 above.


MANIWAKI INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Maniwaki Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so. did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


QUEBEC REGIONAL H.Q. INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Quebec regional H.Q. Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded di-
20220-709i
Questions
rectly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


POINTE-BLEUE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Pointe-Bleue Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


SEVEN ISLANDS INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Seven Islands Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


SOUTHERN ONTARIO REGIONAL H.Q. INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the southern Ontario regional H.Q. Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so. did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.

Questions


BERSIMIS INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Bersimis Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


ABITIBI INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Abitibi Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said hand or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


P.ET. INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the P.E.I. Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so. did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


ST. JOHN RIVER INDIAN AGENCY- DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the St. John river Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any

meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


FISHER RIVER INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Fisher river indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


DAUPHIN INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Dauphin Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


CLANDEBOYE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Clandeboye Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded

directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch,
or any other department or branch of government
in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


MANITOBA REGIONAL H.Q. INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Manitoba regional H.Q. Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


SIOUX LOOKOUT INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Sioux Lookout Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions were not recorded.


SAULT STE. MARIE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Sault Ste. Marie Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.
Questions


PORT ARTHUR INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Port Arthur Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


NIPISSING INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Nipissing Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions not advanced.


NAKINA INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Nakina Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


MANITOULIN ISLAND INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Manitoulin island Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian

Questions
affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


KENORA INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Kenora Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so. did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


JAMES BAY INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the James Bay Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


FORT FRANCES INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Fort Frances Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded

directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch,
or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions not advanced.


CHAPLEAU INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Chapleau Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions were not recorded.


NORTHERN ONTARIO REGIONAL H.Q. INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the northern Ontario regional H.Q. Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


WALPOLE ISLAND INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Walpole island Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


TYENDINAGA INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Tyendinaga Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


ST. REGIS INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the St. Regis Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so. did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


SIX NATIONS INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Six Nations Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.
Questions


BRUCE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Bruce Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


SARNIA INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Sarnia Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


PETERBOROUGH INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Peterborough Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions were not recorded.


SIMCOE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Simcoe Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs

Questions
branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so. did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


YUKON INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Yukon Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


WILLIAMS LAKE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Williams lake Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No special meetings were held but discussions were held with individual Indians but not formally recorded.


WEST COAST INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the west coast Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so. did the said

superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions not advanced.


VANCOUVER INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Vancouver Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


TERRACE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Terrace Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions not advanced.


STUART LAKE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Stuart lake Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch,

or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


SKEENA RIVER INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Skeena River Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so. did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but no opinions were recorded.


QUEEN CHARLOTTE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Queen Charlotte Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions not advanced.


OKANAGAN INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Okanagan Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?
Questions


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


NICOLA INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Nicola Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands of Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


NEW WESTMINSTER INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the New Westminster Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


LYTTON INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Lytton Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.

Questions


KWAWKEWLTH INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Kwawkewlth Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions were not recorded.


KOOTENAY INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Kootenay Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but no opinions were advanced.


KAMLOOPS INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Kamloops Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings held but opinions not recorded.


FORT ST. JOHN INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Fort St. John Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions were not recorded.


COWICHAN INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Cowichan Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


BURNS LAKE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Bums Lake Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


BELLA COOLA INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Bella Coola Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings held but no opinions were recorded.


BABINE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Babine Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


YELLOWKNIFE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Yellowknife Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


FORT SMITH INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Fort Smith Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs
Questions
branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


FORT SIMPSON INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Fort Simpson Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


AKLAVIK INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Aklavik Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


DISTRICT OF MACKENZIE H.Q. INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the district of Mackenzie H.Q. Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament.

Questions
and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings held but no opinions were recorded.


STONY-SARCEE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Stony-Sarcee Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


SADDLE LAKE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Saddle Lake Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions not advanced.


PEIGAN INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Peigan Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and Were these opinions transmitted or forwarded
[Mr. Howard.!
directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch,
or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


LESSER SLAVE LAKE INDIAN AGENCY- DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Lesser Slave Lake Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were the opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


HOBBEMA INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Hobbema Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


FORT VERMILION INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Fort Vermilion Indian agency of any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings held but opinions not recorded.


EDMONTON INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Edmonton Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government ment in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


BLOOD INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Blood Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of. or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but no opinions were advanced.


BLACKFOOT INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Blackfoot Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.
Questions


ATHABASKA INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Athabaska Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


ALBERTA REGIONAL H.Q. INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Alberta regional H.Q. Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but no opinions were recorded.


TOUCHWOOD INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Touchwood Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were the opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


MEADOW LAKE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Meadow Lake Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian

Questions
affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


SHELLBROOK INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Shellbrook Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


PELLY INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Felly Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


FILE HILLS-QU'APPELLE INDIAN AGENCY- DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the File Hills-Qu'-Appelle Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian

people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


DUCK LAKE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Duck Lake Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


CROOKED LAKE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Crooked Lake Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


CARLTON INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Carlton Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


BATTLEFORD INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Battleford Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


SASKATCHEWAN REGIONAL H.Q. INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Saskatchewan regional H.Q. Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


THE PAS INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of The Pas Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.
Questions


PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE INDIAN AGENCY- DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Portage la Prairie Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?
Mr. Huber! Badanai (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): No.


NELSON RIVER INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Nelson River Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meeting was held but opinions not advanced.


ISLAND LAKE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Island Lake Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions not advanced.

Questions


PARRY SOUND INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Parry Sound Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands, or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


GOLDEN LAKE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Golden Lake Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


CHRISTIAN ISLAND INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Christian Island Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


RESTIGOUCHE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Restigouche Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian

affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


OKA INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Oka Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


TIMISKAMING INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Timiskaming Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands, or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Meetings were held but opinions not advanced.


CARADOC INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Caradoc Indian Agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said

superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa ?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


ODANAK-LORETTE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Odanak-Lorette Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


CAUGHNAWAGA INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Caughnawaga Indian agency or any other officer, of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.


SHUBENACADIE INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Shubenacadie Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?
Questions


Hubert Badanai: No.


ESKASONI INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Eskasoni Indian agency or any other officer, of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


THE MIRAMICHI INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the Miramichi Indian agency or any other officer, of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so, did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


MARITIME REGIONAL H.Q. INDIAN AGENCY-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Mr. Howard: Did the superintendent of the maritimes regional H.Q. Indian agency or any other officer of the Indian affairs branch hold any meetings with, attend any meetings of, or in any way discuss with any of the Indian bands or Indian people in the said agency the provisions of Bill C-130 introduced during the 1963 session of parliament, and if so. did the said superintendent or other officer record the opinions of the said band or bands or Indian people and were these opinions transmitted or forwarded directly or indirectly to the Indian affairs branch, or any other department or branch of government in Ottawa?


Hubert Badanai: No.

Questions


STATUS OF F.L.Q. MEMBERS SENTENCED TO JAIL
Mr. MacRae: What is the present status of the five members of the front de liberation Quebecois who were sentenced to prison after the so called letter box bombings in Westmount in 1963?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: One member of the front de liberation Quebecois was paroled on November 18, 1964, under the provisions of the Parole Act and five others are inmates in federal penitentiaries in the province of Quebec.


PROSECUTION OF TAXI DRIVER, WINNIPEG
Mr. Cowan: What progress is being made by the government in its prosecution of Gabriel Robert Johnson, the taxicab driver who has been accused of picking up a fare at Stevenson field, Winnipeg, despite a monopoly contract given to Moore's taxi service in that city?


Jean-Charles Cantin: On
December 7 the Manitoba court of appeal upheld a ruling of the trial magistrate rejecting a preliminary objection by the defence, and the matter has been referred back to the magistrate's court for plea and hearing.


CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING ONOFRIO MINAUDO
Mr. Scott: 1.	What correspondence was received from (a) His Honour Judge Bruce J. S. McDonald, chairman of the Ontario police commission, or (b) attorney general of Ontario by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in regard to one, Onofrio Minaudo?
2.	What were the dates of such letters?
3.	What reply, if any, was made to these letters, and when?
4.	Did the letters disclose to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration the criminal record of the said Minaudo?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Two letters dated November 18, 1963, and December 12, 1963, from His Honour Judge Bruce J. S. McDonald addressed to Hon. Guy Favreau, minister of citizenship and immigration, and one letter from Mr. F. M. Cass, attorney general of Ontario, dated January 13, 1964, addressed to Hon. Guy Favreau, minister of citizenship and immigration.
2.	See answer to number 1.
3.	Reply by Hon. R. Tremblay, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, on March 12, 1964, to Mr. Percy Milligan, Q.C., who had

succeeded His Honour Judge Bruce J. S. McDonald indicating that Minaudo had been deported to Italy on March 11, 1964. A similar letter was also sent to Mr. Cass by Mr. Tremblay on the same date.
4.	The letters from His Honour Judge Bruce J. S. McDonald and Mr. Cass did not disclose the criminal record of Minaudo. (However, they did indicate that some police authorities considered Minaudo a friend and associate of persons believed to be engaged in crime in Michigan, U.S.A. The letter from Mr. Cass indicated that Judge McDonald was anxious to ascertain the status of Minaudo, whether a visitor or immigrant to this country.)


GUISEPPE CATALANOTTE-RESIDENCE IN CANADA
Mr. Scoff: 1.	When did Guiseppe Catalanotte, one-time resident of 288 Hall avenue, Windsor, Ontario, enter Canada?
2.	Did he have an immigrant or non-immigrant
visa?
3.	Was he granted a visa in December 1961 and, if so, for what period?
4.	Was any order made for his deportation and, if so, what was the date of the said order?
5.	What action was taken to execute the said order and was any warrant issued for his apprehension?
6.	When was the last record of his having resided in Canada?
7.	When was the Department of Citizenship and Immigration informed of his convictions in the United States of threats of extortion, gambling, and narcotics offences?
8.	When was the government informed that the
said Catalanotte had been ordered to be deported by the United States?
9.	Was the government aware of his association in Cuba with one Onofrio Minaudo?


René Tremblay: 1. The immigration file discloses that Guiseppe Catalanotte entered Canada at Malton airport on May 15, 1958, at Dorval airport on May 27, 1958, and at Malton airport on October 21, 1961.
2.	On each of these three occasions he was in possession of a non-immigrant visa.
3.	No. The non-immigrant visa which he obtained to gain entry in 1961 was issued on October 18, 1961. A Canadian non-immigrant visa is made valid for presentation at a Canadian port of entry for a prescribed period. The visa itself is not valid for any period of temporary stay in Canada. The period of stay to be authorized can only be determined by the examining immigration officer at the Canadian port of entry.
4.	Yes. September 24, 1964.

5.	Deportation was effected to Italy under escort on November 5, 1964. Warrants for his apprehension and arrest had been issued on 14 July, 1958, 13 January, 1961, and 20 March, 1964.
6.	November 5, 1964.
7.	On June 26, 1958, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration was informed of this man's criminal record which included convictions in the United States for threats of extortion and illegal possession of narcotics.
8.	June 26, 1958.
9.	Yes.


DEPORTATION OF ONOFRIO MINAUDO
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Was one Onofrio Minaudo, deported from Canada on or about the 11th of March, 1964?
2.	When was the order of deportation made?
3.	What were the reasons for the order?
4.	When did the same Onofrio Minaudo enter Canada and when he entered Canada did he have an immigrant or a non-immigrant visa?
5.	Is the said Onofrio Minaudo the same person who lived at 301 Belleperche street in Riverside. Ontario, and was the said Minaudo deported from the United States?
6.	Was the said Minaudo convicted in absentia in Italy on charges of murder, armed robbery and
double murder and sentenced to 30 years to life imprisonment?
7.	Was the said Minaudo convicted when working for one Santo Peronne on conspiracy to violate the state labour law and fined $1,000 with two years' probation?
8.	Was the Department of Citizenship and Immigration made aware of his association with the Detroit Mafia?
9.	Who, if anyone, made representations on behalf of the said Onofrio Minaudo in connection with his deportation or status in Canada?
10.	When was the fact that the said Onofrio Minaudo was resident in Canada first called to the attention of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?


René Tremblay: 1. Yes, on March 11, 1964.
2.	February 9, 1961.
3.	Section 19(l)(e)(ix) of the Immigration Act in that he returned to or remained in Canada contrary to the provisions of the Immigration Act after a deportation order had been made against him.
4.	The immigration file discloses that Minaudo entered Canada at Malton airport on May 22, 1955, June 24, 1956 and on June 25, 1960. On each occasion, he was in possession of a non-immigrant visa.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes, however, no request for extradition was ever received and the sentences were later declared prescribed.
7.	Yes.
Questions
8.	The department was aware of allegations to this effect.
9.	Mr. Ross Riddell, Q.C., of Windsor, Ontario, as solicitor for Minaudo from time to time between 1957-1961; the late D. F. Brown, M.P. for Essex West, in 1957; Mr. R. D. Thrasher, M.P. for Essex South, in 1958; Mr. Paul Martin, M.P. for Essex East, in 1960-61; subsequently, in September 1963, after being advised of information not previously known to him about Minaudo, he informed the minister that he wished to be dissociated from representations concerning the case; Mr. Bryce Monaghan, chief of police, Riverside, Ontario, in February 1961, also later withdrawn.
10.	The fact that Minaudo was resident in Canada was first called to the attention of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in 1956.


OLD AGE PENSIONERS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVING OLD AGE ASSISTANCE
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Of those who became eligible for the old age pension in the year ended March 31, 1964, what percentage had previously been receiving old age assistance?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 25.03 per cent.


CENSUS ENUMERATION, 1964
Mr. McBain: 1.	Did the government in November, 1964, conduct a census enumeration through the dominion bureau of statistics or is it now conducting one in December and, if so, what is the nature of the enumeration?
2.	Where are these census tests being conducted?
3.	How many persons are employed in these tests?
4.	Were these persons selected through the national employment service and, if not, how were they selected?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The dominion bureau of statistics is now conducting a test in preparation of the 1966 census of population. The enumeration portion commenced on November 25 and involves testing some new operational procedures and the questionnaire.
2.	A section of the central part of the city of Ottawa.
3.	Thirty eight.
4.	No. Two were selected by the dominion bureau of statistics to act as census commissioners and the balance were selected on the basis of a test prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics and administered by the

Questions
census commissioners. This procedure is similar to that used in previous censuses and is in accordance with section 5 (1) of the Statistics Act.


RENTAL OF KALADAR BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the federal government rented the Kal-adar building on Kaladar street, Ottawa, and if so, from whom did it rent the building?
2.	For what purpose is this building being used?
3.	What annual rental is being paid by the federal government for this building?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Yes, from Kaladar Realties Limited, Ottawa, effective April 1, 1961.
2.	Accommodation for the Canadian government exhibition commission of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
3.	$88,500 per annum for an area of 76,000 square feet.
OPERATION OF SHIP "JOHN GUY'>


Mr. Douglas: 1.	What company or person owns the boat John Guy operating mainly between St. John's and Bell island in Newfoundland?
2.	Does the government of Canada pay any subsidy for the operation of the John Guy and, if so (a) to whom is the subsidy paid (b) what amount has been paid each year since 1958?
3.	Has the John Guy been overhauled or repaired at the C.N.R. docks in St. John's since 1958 and, if so (a) what was the cost of each overhaul or repair job for the John Guy (b) what were the dates of such overhauls or repairs (c) what were the dates of payment and by whom were payments made?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Canadian maritime commission advises as follows:
1.	The government of Canada owns the John Guy operating between Portugal Cove and Bell island, Nfld., only.
2.	Yes. (a) Newfoundland Transportation
Company Limited, P.O. Box 5626, St. John's, Newfoundland, (b) Subsidy was paid for the operation of two vessels, the M/Vs John Guy and Kipawo, as follows: 1958-59, nil; 195960, nil; 1960-61, nil; 1961-62, $274,385; 196263,	$150,200;	1963-64,	$223,285. Of this
amount, $114,097.80 charter hire was paid to the Department of Transport.
3.	Yes.
(a)	(1) $671; (2) $1,221.85; (3) $8,268.80; (4) $31,564.50; (5) $14,097.32; (6) $23,268.99.
(b)	(1) September 1960; (2) November 1960; (3) February 1961; (4) May 1962; (5) May 1963; (6) May 1964.
[Mr. Sharp 1
(c)	(1) January 18, 1961, by Dynamic Engineering Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que.
(2)	March 30, 1962, by Ferguson Industries Ltd., Pictou, N.S.
(3)	March 30,	1962, by Newfoundland
Transportation Co. Ltd., St. John's, Nfld.
(4)	By Newfoundland Transportation Co. Ltd.:
August 22, 1962	$6,564.50
Sept. 17, 1962	5,000.00
Nov. 13, 1962	2,000.00
Jan. 2, 1963	5,000.00
Feb. 26, 1963	5,000.00
March 30, 1963	3,000.00
April 24, 1963	1,375.67
May 21, 1963	3,624.33
Total	$31,564.50
Nov. 30, 1963	$4,803.30
Dec. 27, 1963	4,276.02
Jan. 4, 1964	5,000.00

(6) not paid as of December 8, 1964.


N.C.C. PROPERTY PURCHASE, OTTAWA
Mr. Douglas: What was the price paid by the national capital commission for property on Boteler street, Ottawa that had belonged to Zelikovitz Bros.?
Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public
Works): The national capital commission paid Zelikovitz Bros. Limited $215,000. This amount represented compensation for acquisition by the national capital commission of the lease which the company had with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for property on Boteler street, Ottawa, plus business disturbance, the value of immovable equipment and for the value of the buildings on the property.


N.C.C. PROPERTY SALE, OTTAWA
Mr. Douglas: What was the selling price per acre for land on the Innes road, Ottawa, sold by the national capital commission to Zelikovitz Bros.?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The national capital commission did not sell any land on the Innes road, Ottawa, to Zelikovitz Bros. Limited.


ATLANTIC PROVINCES-STORM DAMAGE TO WHARVES
Mr. Coates: What action is the Minister of Public Works taking to determine the degree of damage to wharfage

facilities in the Atlantic provinces as a result of recent storms, and what action is planned to effect immediate repairs to these facilities?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Officials of the department are now carrying out investigations to determine the damage, if any, caused to wharfage facilities in the Atlantic provinces by recent storms. Emergency repairs which may be required will be undertaken without delay.


HEATING SYSTEM, SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coates: What type of heating system will be installed in the young offenders penal institution at Spring-hill and what type of fuel will be used to fire the heating system in question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A high temperature hot water system fired by coal will be installed.


EXPENDITURES ON CULTURAL CENTRES, CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION
Mr. Choquetle: Does the government intend to spend any sums additional to those in the budget already established in connection with the construction of cultural centres for the celebration of Canada's centennial?


Maurice Lamontagne: No.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 64-T2019
Mr. Loney: What are the names an addresses of the successful candidates of civil service of Canada competition No. 64-T2019?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have been given the following information by the civil service commission. The names of the successful candidates are shown in order of merit, as they appear on the eligible list, as a result of competition 64-T2019, inspectors 1, record of performance, various centres in Ontario.
Ellis, Frederick Leonard, 97 Glen avenue, Ottawa 1, Ontario.
Scott, Mervin Kenneth, c/o Jarvis Hereford Farm, R. R. #3, Jarvis, Ontario.
Kelly, William Basil, Present Address: Huntingdon, Quebec. Address as of closing date of competition: R. R. }3, King, Ontario.
Farrell, Lloyd Gordon Dale, R. R. #2, Ripley, Ontario.
Beverley, Robert John, 131 Kingswood Road, Toronto 13, Ontario.
Questions
Pregent, Roger, Lefaivre, Ontario.
Cavanagh, James Keith, R. R. #1, Almonte, Ontario.
Down, Richard Walter, R. R. #2, Wood-ville, Ontario.
Hobbs, Robert John, 81 Ossington avenue, Ottawa, Ontario.
Heyink, Henry John, Eden Mills, Ontario.
Hall, Murray Campbell, Carlsbad Springs, Ontario.
Jentz, Kenneth Alvin, Box 56, Lynden, Ontario.
Rutley, Dwayne Brown, R. R. Jl, Newington, Ontario.
Jolliffe, Robert Edward, R. R. #1, Glan-worth, Ontario.
Crozier, Burleigh, Box 256, 79 Walnut street, Paris, Ontario. (Mr. Crozier's appointment subject to satisfactory medical examination prior to employment.)
Mcllraith, George Alexander, Sprague Haven Farm, R. R. #4, Galt, Ontario.
Smith, Allan James, R. R. #3, hit. Albert, Ontario.
Ball, Harold Francis Eric, R. R. #1, Con. 2, Lot 33, Dundas, Ontario.
Southam, Kenneth Richard, R. R. jf2, Nanti-coke, Ontario.
Note: The first ranking candidate, Mr. Frederick Leonard Ellis, is entitled to the statutory preference for veterans.


ESTABLISHMENT OF REHABILITATION WORKSHOP, SASKATOON
Mrs. Jones: Anticipating a national program of assistance based on the recommendations of the Hall commission to provide partial rehabilitation and occupational help to those with permanent mental and physical handicaps, would the government try to determine the most effective means of ultimately providing this assistance by immediately allocating a special grant to establish in Saskatoon a sheltered workshop as a pilot project?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Minister of National Health and Welfare would be glad sympathetically to consider the question of federal assistance for this project when the details are available. Certain aspects of developments of this nature may come within the terms of reference of the national health grants or other federal programs. It would be necessary to have a detailed project to determine the most appropriate manner of providing federal assistance, if the project qualifies for support.

Questions


TENDERS FOR WATCH HOUSES
Mr. Loney: 1.	What are the names and addresses ot the tenderers, tender for watchhouses 2D12-15?
2.	What was the price quoted by each tenderer?
3.	What the lowest tender accepted and, if not, for what reason?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. and 2.
Names and addresses Price quoted by
of tenderers	each tenderer
John M. Donald, Campbellford,
Ont.	$ 9,900
L. Van Dyk Construction Ltd., Park-hill road w., Peterborough, Ont. 13,589 William Arch & Sons, Streetsville,
Ont.	14,157
Leslie George Construction Services,
881 Kawartha drive, Peterborough, Ont.	14,790
Atco Industries, 1243-48th ave.,
N.E., Calgary, Alberta.	14,958
F. R. Armstrong & Son, P.O. Box
162, Stirling, Ont.	16,975
Carl Jorgenson, 72 Kawartha Heights blvd., Peterborough, Ont. 17,380 Bar-Way Marine Ltd., 1222 York
Mills road, Don Mills, Ont.	22,500
Ruliff Grass Construction Ltd.,
Thornhill, Ont.	23,700
D. W. Clarke, 748 Armour road,
Peterborough, Ont.	24,800
3. The matter is still under review by the department.


BILINGUAL ANNOUNCEMENTS, RADIO STATION C.B.A., SACKVILLE, N.B.
Mr. Coates: What is the explanation for C.B.A. radio Sack-ville, N.B. announcing station identification and news broadcasts in both French and English?
Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of
State): I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the announcements in both languages occur after midnight during the all night service when C.B.A. carries the program and news service common to all stations across Canada, connected to the emergency broadcasting network.


TRANSLATION OF OLD AGE PENSION APPLICATIONS, TORONTO
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): When applications for the old age pension are submitted to the Toronto office of the Department of National Health and Welfare, accompanied by

supporting documents in French, are these documents sent to Ottawa for translation and, if so, for what reason?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The policy of the old
age security division of the Department of National Health and Welfare is to have French language documents translated locally in regional offices. Only under unusual circumstances would such documents be sent to Ottawa for translation.


TELEPHONE LISTING OF RAYMOND DENIS
Mr. Coates: As the Minister of Justice stated that Raymond Denis left the employment of the ministry of citizenship and immigration "on or about October 1", what is the explanation for Raymond Denis being listed on the private telephone listing of staff of cabinet ministers as executive assistant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on October 7th, 1964?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The listing of the names and telephone numbers of the staffs of cabinet ministers is prepared periodically in the Prime Minister's office for the convenience of ministers and departments, A routine revision was prepared during the last week of September 1964. At that time Mr. Denis was still nominally on the strength of the minister's office although he had not served in it after he had been given leave on August 31.


REQUEST FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF HALL COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. Howe (Hamillon: South):
Has the government received representations from the Port Coquitlam New Democratic party club, supported by 546 signatures, requesting immediate implementation of the recommendations of the Hall commission report, and, if so, what has been the reply?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. The reply of the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that 14 committees in the department are engaged in a detailed study and analysis of the Hall commission report; referred to the constitutional responsibilities which the separate provinces have in the health field which necessitate very close collaboration between the federal government and the provincial governments in the formulation of a national health plan; and reiterated the government's announced aim to be in a position to present its proposals to the provinces early in the new year.


SUBSIDY PAID FOR VESSEL CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Tucker: What was the total amount paid by the Canadian maritime commission for the construction of vessels for the fiscal years ended (a) March 31. 1962 (b) March 31. 1963 (c) March 31, 1964, and (d) since April 1, 1964?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Canadian maritime commission advises as follows: (a) March 31, 1962, $2,025,261.36; (b) March 31, 1963, $22,500,000; (c) March 31 1964, $40,000,000; (d) since April 1, 1964, $19,130,384.37.


PURCHASES OF FURNITURE
Mr. Winkler: 1.	How many purchases of furniture have been made by the government since April 1963?
2.	From what firms was this furniture purchased and what was the amount of each purchase?
3.	Were tenders called for each order?
4.	Who writes the tenders for these orders?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Question No. 2,579 covers perhaps a dozen government departments as well as crown agencies. As far as the public work department is concerned, it is impossible to answer this question now because of the tremendous amount of research involved, and I am told by my officials, that unless this question is clarified, it would take 300 man days of work, in Ottawa only, to answer the question as drafted.
This being said, the Department of Public Works reports that since April 1963, there was no purchase of any kind from the companies controlled or managed by the Sefkind brothers, and they never even bid on any tender calls for furniture.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
What has been the government contribution, financial or otherwise, to the current Canadian investigation of Easter Island?
Return tabled.


SCHOOLS ATTENDED BY INDIAN CHILDREN
Mr. Orlikow: 1. How many Indian children in each Canadian province were attending the following types of elementary schools in each of the past ten years (a) Indian residential schools (b) segregated day
Orders for Returns
schools for Indian students (c) public or separate schools in the regular school systems?
2. How many Indian children in each Canadian province were attending the following types of high schools in each of the past ten years (a) Indian residential schools (b) segregated day schools for Indian students (c) public or separate schools in the regular school systems?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL CONTRACTS TO HALIFAX SHIPYARDS
Mr. Coates: What is the total amount of contracts awarded to Halifax shipyards by the federal government for the fiscal years from 1957-58 to 1963-64 and the total amount of awards to date for the fiscal year 1964-65?
Return tabled.


FOOD SUPPLIERS FOR C.C.G.S. &quot;ALEXANDER MACKENZIE&quot;
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1962 what are the names of each food supplier in Prince Rupert, B.C. who provided (a) meats, and (b) other foodstuffs, for the HM.C.S. Alexander MacKenzie and for each month, how much money was paid to each such food supplier?
2.	Are tenders called for the supplying of such provisions to the Alexander MacKenzie and, if so, when was the latest tender called and who were the bidders and the amounts of the bids and, if not, why were tenders not called?
Return tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in connection with questions. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) can speak for himself, but his question No. 1,214 dealing with the C.B.C. has been on the order paper since June 3. Question No. 1,642 asked by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns) and also dealing with the C.B.C. has been on the order paper since July 31. Question No. 1,705, asked by the hon. member for Duf-ferin-Simcoe (Mr. Madill) and again dealing with the C.B.C., has been on the order paper since August 12. The delay in replying to those questions is inexcusable and cannot be justified in any way.
I would also point out that starred question No. 1,889 asked by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) and dealing with the flag question has been on the order paper since September 9. No matter how many questions are answered, the fact remains that the failure to provide answers to these questions cannot be justifiably explained awray, and in particular those questions respecting the C.B.C.

Canadian Commonwealth Flag


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege may I say that there has been discussion with the three members who asked questions concerning the C.B.C., and I believe all three members understand the difficulties-


John George Diefenbaker: What are the difficulties?


John B. Stewart: -which are involved. In one or two instances there was difficulty in get-ing in touch with the hon. members.



CANADIAN COMMONWEALTH FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the seventh and final report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Flemming (Vic-toria-Carleton).
Some hon. Members:: Question. [Translation]


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, as a member from the province of Quebec and the representative in this house of a riding whose population is more than 75 per cent French speaking, I feel I should express my views on the debate under way, and especially on the motion for concurrence in the seventh report of the flag committee asking us to recognize the union jack, the union flag, as the symbol of our membership in the commonwealth and our allegiance to the crown.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to restrict my remarks to the amendment now before us, and I hope that you will appreciate that most of the points I will make will apply to the original report as well as to the Conservative amendment.
All through the flag debate the Liberal members were blamed for their silence and it has been said that we were muzzled, that we were afraid to stand up, as the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) said last Thursday, while it was very well known that there was, within our party, a very great unanimity on the matter, and not only a virtual majority, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
The same thing applies to the seventh report. We needed only a few speeches to express the general opinion, and as other

speakers could refute the numerous false accusations from the opposition, we were quite satisfied to listen patiently to the Conservatives and their nonsense.
Just imagine, if every member had made an average of three speeches, we would still have to listen to them until Easter, and that without interruption.
The great majority of the population, and even the press, are unanimous in saying that the official opposition has abused freedom of speech and that it will certainly be judged on its attitude and be held responsible for having tarnished the image of parliament-


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We are now on an amendment to the seventh report. The hon. member who has the floor has no right to speak of our activity during the debate on the sixth report.


Gérald Laniel: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will have patience for two or three seconds, I think he will be satisfied.
Mr. Speaker, some people claimed that the flag itself was but another concession to the province of Quebec; this is entirely false.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: I do not intend to dwell on that matter-

You listen to what I want to say.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is patently out of order. We are discussing an amendment concerning the red ensign, which has been moved to the motion dealing with the seventh report, and whether or not we are going to adopt it. The hon. member is patently out of order and he should be brought to order.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I have listened very carefully and I must say that the hon. member was a little wide of the mark, but I understand he is now coming back on the rails.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I did not intend to dwell on that matter.
Now that we are on the seventh report and the amendment moved in that regard, we are told that the Liberal members have to pay the price for the adoption of a distinctive national flag by adopting this seventh report. I hasten to deny that, and this applies to the seventh report as well as to the amendment.

Canadian Commonwealth Flag
Yesterday, we gave ourselves a distinctive national flag which will be the pride of all Canadians, a flag they will be able to salute and fly it with honour-


William Heward Grafftey: Why two flags?


Raymond Rock: You are for the red ensign.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, let me say that the English speaking Liberal members are precisely those who put on the most pressure -I would even say all the pressure-on the Prime Minister in order that this distinctive national flag measure be brought forward this year.
We, the Quebec members, wanted, of course a distinctive flag, but we also hoped that our feelings in this regard would be shared by all members from the other provinces. And today we are most happy to say to the people across Canada that we are glad to have placed our confidence in them.


William Heward Grafftey: Explain it to the Quebec voters.


Gérald Laniel: I would ask the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi to explain to his own voters why he abstained when one of the last votes were taken on the flag.


William Heward Grafftey: But you are not answering my question.


Gérald Laniel: We are now considering the motion for the adoption of the final report of the flag committee constituted by unanimous decision of the house. Mr. Speaker, in spite of the Conservative amendment, I believe we should ask ourselves two questions:
1.	Does our country need this second standard, emblem or symbol of our membership in the commonwealth of nations and our fidelity to the Queen of Canada?
2.	Would the union jack or the red ensign or something else be a more proper symbol?
The first spontaneous reaction of many people is to ask why we should consider the adoption of a second flag now that we are on the verge of having a distinctive national flag, particularly in view of the following facts.
Canada is recognized as a self-governing and independent country and we are steadily on the way to achieving nationhood; our central government, in co-operation with the ten provincial governments, has agreed upon a formula to amend our Canadian constitution, a fact which should soon lead to its repatriation; and, with the growing pains we are going through at the present time, we witnessed the development of a Canadian spirit
which a better dialogue, at the federal-provincial level, has definitely promoted.
In short, we become better Canadians, we are more concerned with the future of our country, with Canadian unity, without for all that forgetting our origins, even though they have much less importance in this country.
I would venture here to quote from two articles published in the Montreal Star on December 15. First, here is the conclusion of an editorial headed: "Enough is Enough". I quote:

What this country has wanted is a flag. The particular design was not that important. What it has got after 97 years is a flag, and we should be proud of it. A new generation with new ideas has taken over. Mr. Pearson has shown himself a contemporary figure.

The second item is by Peter Newman, of the same newspaper. It is headed: "Transfer of Power", and I quote:

The debate which marked a turning point in the evolution of our nationhood: The transfer of power from one generation of Canadians to the next.

And further on, Mr. Newman-


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is reading from an editorial on the sixth report of the flag committee. I insist that the hon. member be called to order, for he should be dealing with the amendment to the seventh report of the flag committee now under consideration, and he is dealing with the sixth report of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest that hon. members leave it to the Chair to do the insisting.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I plead with the Chair and ask for a ruling immediately. The member is discussing in great detail the procedure with regard to the sixth report of the committee respecting a distinctive national flag. We are now discussing an amendment to the seventh report of the committee. We are now discussing whether we are going to have a second flag, and we are going to be very interested in learning whether the hon. member will support this amendment or whether he considers the union jack to be the flag of England. He must confine himself to this particular report. I was held very strictly to the seventh report yesterday.
11236

Canadian Commonwealth Flag


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have anything to contribute on this point?


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just been doing what you have forbidden during the last two or three days, the quoting of editorials.


Mr. Speaker:: The point is well taken and I was about to mention it. The hon. member has anticipated the Chair.


An hon. Member:: When?


Gérald Laniel: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps hon. members would think back to the two questions I asked. Did we need a second flag in this country to identify us as members of the commonwealth, and which one of the two flags should be chosen? We are becoming more Canadian at this time, and 1 am just presenting some facts found in editorials to prove that we are becoming more mature and more Canadian. I will foe coming to the point in a moment. I do not see why they do not permit me to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point is that a few days ago, if not last week, the Chair ruled that exact quotations from editorials giving opinions for or against various flags should not be used at this time, that members are here to give their own opinions and not to quote the opinions of others. If I remember correctly that was the exact ruling.


Gérald Laniel: If that is the only point I will put aside these statements and carry on with my own remarks.

All this goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that Canadianism has been substantially developed in recent years, even among English speaking Canadians. I might add, without wishing to offend anybody, that French speaking Canadians enjoy a certain advantage perhaps over the others when it comes to adapting oneself to those changes, to that evolution. Our ties with France were broken a long time ago. We have had to adapt ourselves to a world influenced to a great extent by British institutions. While we managed to keep our mother tongue, at the same time, we developed a personality of our own which is neither French nor British, one which I sometimes call the Canadian personality, having regard to the country itself, its history and its future.


As such, Mr. Speaker, as a French speaking Canadian and also as a Canadian in the proper meaning of the word, am I of the opinion, as an individual, that it is absolutely essential to recognize an official symbol of our membership in the commonwealth? I answer that it might not be absolutely necessary, but I am convinced that such a move is advisable.
I am aware that the house is far from being unanimous on this matter, but I think most Canadians will be pleased with this decision. This will provide us with something which will serve on certain occasions as a reminder of our associations with the member countries of a group of nations which has surely acquired an international renown; it will show our loyalty to the Queen and finally, will be a testimonial to our predecessors-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Gérald Laniel: I hear a member wailing over there-who succeeded in establishing and in maintaining in this country a democratic system which has protected everyone, the powerful and the weak, and has brought us peace and prosperity. One would have to be blind or dishonest to deny this.
As such, we should be proud to be members of the commonwealth. Is Her Majesty Elizabeth II the Queen of Canada or not, as well as the Queen of most of the commonwealth countries? Personally, I was proud that Her Majesty came to this country in October last, and I would add that I was thrilled to pay her my respects during her last visit in the capital. I am a Quebecker just the same, and nobody can refuse me the right to believe in our institutions and to respect them.
Mr. Speaker, would you kindly allow me to refer directly to the choice of the flag and to quote the words uttered by Hon. Jean Lesage on December 6 last? He said:
The sad Irony of it all is that actually, only those In favour of the 1867 status quo could have taken part in demonstrations against the Queen. Her very title shows that our country is master of its own destiny and that it has been decolonized. But, amidst the vociferations, it was not easy to understand the deep meaning and the lasting effect of a sentence spoken by the Queen in Quebec: "The role of the monarchy is to guarantee the execution of the will of the people".
Mr. Speaker, these last words correspond directly to my aspirations as a Canadian from the province of Quebec and I am not willing to sacrifice my country's future to agitators or to philosophies that could lead us I know not where.

The right hon. Prime Minister of Canada said:
Patriotism by some does not exclude patriotism by others.
Therefore, I think it is possible for us to have different opinions or feelings on certain matters, but I think that we must be concerned with building, with preserving what we have, with seeking solutions that unite instead of dividing.
We have been accused of tearing down the red ensign; well, I say that we did not tear down anything; on the contrary, we have mainly made greater the national symbol that is our flag, we have replaced it by a standard that will strengthen and unite the country, and now that this has been done, I suggest that the distinctive national flag does not exclude other outward signs which may link us with our past and attest our institutions.
As I am convinced of this fact, 1 am sure that Quebeckers, when they salute our distinctive national flag, will not object to recognizing, beside it, under special circumstances, another symbol which, after all, has indirectly helped and contributed to lead us until now, in a Canada which is growing stronger from day to day.
However, I cannot accept the Conservative amendment, which makes me think that the official opposition is looking for some way to continue the fight on the flag which I believe to have lasted long enough, instead of joining those who stand for it, like the majority of Canadians will do.
We need unity. Therefore, let us act seriously, as true Canadians, and avoid any protraction of this fight which has lasted many months. This house has voted on a distinctive national flag, a standard which, in my opinion, meets the aspirations of the majority of Canadians and which we will soon see unfurled over all public buildings, over parliament buildings and also during any public demonstration throughout Canada. No one wishes to vilify or depreciate the red ensign, because it has served our country well. But it must give way before a purely Canadian flag, a symbol of national unity and a pledge of our future.
Some may be more inclined than others to use our second flag, besides our distinctive national flag, but, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this will change with the years and that very shortly the maple leaf flag will be honoured, not only on public buildings, but in the hearts of all Canadians.
20220-71OJ
Canadian Commonwealth Flag
For this purpose, and also to avoid misuse of the flag which is proposed in the seventh report, I believe that the government, through an order in council, should define and set out the various circumstances under which the union jack could be flown besides our distinctive flag. This would not exclude its being used in other circumstances, but it would foresee doubtful situations and prevent criticism on the part of those who wish to deride the adoption of this second symbol which will identify us to the other nations of the commonwealth and recall our allegiance to our Queen. I hope that my suggestion will be taken into consideration and that the right hon. Prime Minister will implement it, once this seventh report is concurred in.
Coming back to the expression "price to pay", it is used mostly by those who do not want to make an effort to preserve national unity and I am strongly opposed to it. It is only meant to divide us and I say to those who use it that, if they insist on using it, I am ready to answer them in their own language and that I am ready to pay that price. The people in Quebec have paid a lot more before the present administration came into office, and it is in our own province that you will probably find the greatest understanding and the strongest wish to strengthen national unity.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) charged, in the course of the debate on the sixth report, that we had to rely on the Creditistes' support for most bills which we submitted to the house. I wish to point out to him that the group led by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is not in the Liberal party's pay but that the sole purpose of its action is to serve its own election interests, without any consideration for anyone, not even national unity. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Grdgoire), in the speech he made last night, was trying much more to ridicule than to find means to unify our country. He made fun of some words used in the report showing his obvious lack of understanding and that his only desire was to rouse the feelings of French Canadians.
As to the French speaking Conservatives, I fail to understand clearly why they would abstain on the amendment. They want to have their cake and eat it too by abstaining to vote on the Conservative amendment concerning the adoption of the red ensign instead of the union jack, while they intend to vote

Canadian Commonwealth Flag against the seventh report moved by the government.
In my opinion, they should be consistent and I do not believe that they can allow themselves not to vote against the Conservative amendment which, in fact, changes nothing at all to the matter of principle which they do not approve. Are they for or against it?


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Gérald Laniel: When my remarks are finished.


William Heward Grafftey: Thanks a lot.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to say that I am very much concerned with the problem of Canadian unity, like most of us, and certainly as much as the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos) with whom I fraternize from time to time; it is even my first concern as a member from Quebec, and I ask all hon. members of this house, as well as all Canadians, to look for the solutions which will be pledges of our unity, not to go too fast and live with patience and understanding through the coming years, which will lead us to a better and stronger Canada, a Canada of ours with an increasing reputation throughout the world.


William Heward Grafftey: I would like to put a question to the hon. member who just delivered a great speech. Now that he indicated his desire to vote against the Conservative amendment, I would like to know whether he feels, with most of his fellow citizens in the province of Quebec, that the union jack is the flag of England, as is the case for most people outside Quebec?


Gérald Laniel: In answer to the hon. member, I do believe that this is a matter of judgment and common sense. We had a flag known as the red ensign and we have replaced it by a new one, one with a maple leaf which represents the future. Surely we are not going to continue the fight, as I said in my speech. We feel that the only distinctive national flag is the one with a maple leaf, but now we want a symbol of our membership in the commonwealth and our allegiance to the Queen. Certainly, such a symbol must be recognized and used by the majority of the other members of the commonwealth.
The red ensign has never been unfurled by Australia or New Zealand, while the union jack is generally used throughout the commonwealth. The Queen's flag should be recognized as the symbol of our membership in

the commonwealth and our respect for Her Majesty.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, three or four minutes will suffice for what I have to say in this particular debate. I should like to correct an impression left by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel). He kept referring to the Conservative amendment. I should like to tell him that had the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton not introduced this amendment, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) was prepared to do so and I was prepared to second a similar amendment.
I have been very disturbed by events in the house recently during the bitter debate which took place on the previous report of the committee. It seems to me this could well be avoided in discussing the particular report which we are at present considering.
It also seems to me there is a strong suspicion that when the vote is taken on the amendment the Liberal party is going to vote as a block. This is very surprising, because we all know many individual Liberal members who prefer the red ensign to the union jack. Some French speaking members of the Liberal party have said they would abstain on such a vote, yet I think I can predict that when the vote is taken they will vote as a party. Because of this it is very hard to convince me and others that it will be a free vote.
I should like to appeal to the Prime Minister to make certain there is a free vote; because I am convinced that if there is, then the vast majority of the members of this house will support the red ensign as the flag to represent our association with the commonwealth.


An hon. Member:: Let us vote now and you will find out right away.


Robert William Prittie: I shall not keep you very long. After the rather bitter debate which took place on the sixth report of the flag committee I feel a free vote on the seventh report would do much to remove some of the bad feeling created during the past week. I agree we should have a flag to represent our association with the commonwealth, and I am convinced that in a free vote the red ensign will receive the support of the large majority of members in the house.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that to all intents and purposes we

should be celebrating the birth of our new flag. Now that some of the dust has settled and the house has returned to a more friendly frame of mind, I wish to say that I think we have a flag, a distinctive Canadian flag; and as I promised in six earlier speeches, that new flag will have my unqualified support.
It has never been my practice to stand up one day and recommend something, and then overnight change my mind. I hope I will not be considered as being stubborn or narrowminded. I believe in principle; I believe in being consistent, and I shall try to be consistent today. I am one of those who have always believed that one country needs only one flag. But of course I am here to represent the great district of Athabasca and to vote yea or nay on every subject that comes before the house.
I should like always to be able to decide between right and wrong. I would like to have clearcut principles, but on this subject I find the question proposed to me is something like this; which of your brothers would you like to murder, your brother Ted or your brother Walter? I do not believe in fratricide; therefore I cannot say which of my brothers I prefer to murder. As I am a lawyer some people may say this is legal jargon, and if they wish it explained I shall relate it to the question before the house; which of two designs, among second flags, do I want? The answer to that is very plain.
For this great country of ours, this young and virile nation, we need only one flag, but I am forced by principle to vote yea or nay between two designs which I do not want, now that the main question has been settled. How does a man vote on principle when he is presented with this problem? I shall vote when the time comes, but first I believe we are here to discuss the principles behind the whole issue.
As I have said, I accept the new national flag. I hope every citizen in Canada will rally to it whenever their services are needed. Here again I will be consistent. I have tried to serve the glorious old red ensign well, and I shall try to serve Canada under this new flag so long as I draw breath. But that is not the problem before us today. We are forced to vote on a two flag proposition, no matter what you call it. You may call it a one flag proposition if you like, but we are asked to sanctify or give legal acceptance to a second flag proposed by those very people who said the new national flag would be so representative of the whole nation, would be so distinctive that no person in the world could
Canadian Commonwealth Flag possibly make a mistake when seeing it flying at the mastheads of our ships, painted on the fuselages of our airplanes, or waved by children on parade.
I hope this is so. I hope that as the years go by the citizens of Canada, men and women, young and old, will serve this new flag with the same distinction with which they served the old one, until 100 years from now it will be truly loved and revered, not as a mere empty act of parliament but as one of the symbols of our nation.
I have never criticized the maple leaf as a symbol of Canadian unity, but I have asked that we recognize those other symbols of our past. There are some people who scream to get rid of anything British. I am not thinking of anyone in particular, but it has been said in this house that all vestiges of British colonialism must disappear. I happen to be of British blood. I have a great respect for British justice and their sense of fair play, and even for their colonialism which is classed as the finest the world has ever seen. No other empire in the history of the world gave so much of its strength and brains to develop other countries and set them free.
After Canadians showed in no uncertain fashion on the battlefields of Europe, particularly in world war I, that they had grown up, the old lion was mighty proud of her cub. Punch magazine of that day produced a wonderful cartoon showing the old lion lying inside her cave watching this great, mighty young lion striding forth to become independent and free. At no time in history has the mother of parliaments denied those necessary, and perhaps slow, steps required to bring a colony to nationhood. This is why I revere the British flag. I also revere it because it is something more than a mere symbol of empire. As has been said in this house on numerous occasions the flag of Britain, the noble union jack, is nothing more or less than the combination of three great Christian crosses.
I disagree with those who say we should do away with all that is old and revered just to have something new. There is no education without history, without rehearsing the folklore, the poetry and the great literature of our forefathers, both French and English. We said that we wished to retain in our Canadian flag those vestiges of our past. We did this in no small way. We did this in no petty, partisan way. We had a free vote, at least in the party to which I belong. I am not here to cast aspersions on any other party. We are a positive party. We are a building party. We do not recommend anything in this party of

Canadian Commonwealth Flag ours which in any way tears down the achievements or the beliefs of any other people. We oppose that which is negative but we do not turn down anything that is positive. We are the builders, and now that we have a new flag I appeal to each and every hon. member to put away any acrimonious feelings which may have been felt and to build for the future. Let us have a new dynamic program of building in Canada. Let us eliminate poverty in Canada. When I say we have a new flag, I wish something more to go with that flag. There should be real equality in this country-equality for every man, woman and child, economically as well as in matters concerning religion and race. This is a program we must carry out. I do not expect we shall have to resort to socialism or anything connected with it in order to put this program forward.
I come from a race of pioneers, from a race of adventurers-gamblers, if you will, if you call it gambling to get into a leaky ship, cross 3,000 miles of stormy sea and walk into the bush with nothing but a gun and an axe. I do not think that spirit is dead in Canada. That is why I am able to accept this maple leaf flag as a symbol of those who stepped out into the hardwood forests of Ontario as pioneers and settlers. When pioneering in the east was finished, my grandfather went further west. When my grandfather was at Lac la Biche the flag which flew over his fort looked a great deal like the Canadian red ensign though, in fact, it had the letters H.B.C. in the corner. He was law and order. He was priest, educator, businessman. He was everything in that part of the country. And he did not hold his position because the people were afraid of him. At the time of the rebellion they allowed him to walk out unscathed because he was a man of honour. These same native people loved our red ensign and I am sure that in time they will learn to love the maple leaf flag. If necessary, they will fight for it as they did for the red ensign in three great wars. I am going out to sell them the idea of Canadian unity. But even more important than this idea of Canadian unity I should like to bring them economic equality and economic freedom so that they will no longer be mere wards of the government; so that each and every one may grasp the one thing which, I hope, our race has given them-the idea that a man can stand on his own two feet and make his way in the world. Then, I hope, they will be willing to fight, if necessary, for all those things
TMr. Bigg.]
which a generous nation has put within their grasp.
We cannot call ourselves generous today. Yes, we can pat ourselves on the back and say we have seen the birth of a new flag. But that new flag is like a child, innocent of reputation. Let it not be a foundling child. If members opposite believe in it-and they have commended it, if only by their silence- let them work to establish it. I should not say they did not have the opportunity of a free vote. I would hate to think any Canadian would do anything at any time to prevent his voting freely on such a subject. It took us 2,000 years to get this free vote and I will be the last to suggest that any member of the party opposite would dare give up this heritage. If he did, the men who died at Vimy Ridge and in the battle of Britain must have died in vain. Even now they speak to us when they say:
To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.
These are words which should not be forgotten. This is part of our British heritage.
I do not think it is necessary to fly any flag alongside this new democratic flag we have chosen to prove that we are, in fact, a nation, or to prove that each and every one of us is dedicated to that new nation. If the introduction of this new flag, the one and only symbol of our national pride, represents Canada's birthday, let us not sully it by pretending it needs to be bolstered up. Surely those who wanted a distinctive flag should be the first to say, now that we have a distinctive flag: The House of Commons voted on this flag, and now we have it. I who come of British stock will be the first to say we need not shore it up except with our devotion, our acts and our imagination. We shall go forward and build in the northern half of the North American continent the greatest nation which ever flew any flag.
Some say we need this second flag to show equality in the commonwealth. We do not need any flag to show equality in the commonwealth. The nations of the commonwealth look to Canada for leadership. All through the years they have looked to us for leadership and we have shown that leadership. This is why we are not afraid, now, to launch out on our own; this is why we have cut the umbilical cord. This is why we now have a Queen of our own, and she is a Queen of our own choosing. We are not trammelled

here. Any person in this house can preach in favour of a republic if he wishes. But I will not; I will be consistent in that. Australia and New Zealand know that we are first among equals. That is a good phrase. That is what Canada is in a position of leadership within the commonwealth; she has never asked for a special place but she has earned a place in front because she is marching down that great road at the end of which all men will have equality, dignity and those economic advantages which we ourselves have found in this land of ours. Let us have no more talk about marking our association with the commonwealth by a flag.
We had a beautiful and distinctive one, in my opinion; and if you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, because I do not see any other occasion on which I could say this, I have a suggestion to make with regard to it. I think that one of these days, perhaps Vimy day or on July 1, 1965 we should set aside the whole day to honouring this great red ensign of ours and to honouring the boys who served it so well. I would suggest that our great Governor General, General Vanier, should be given the privilege of laying our red ensign where it belongs-in the peace tower, where the names of those who gave their lives are graved in stone or written in letters of gold. As long as one stone stands on another and as long as we honour these men the flag will remain there as a lasting tribute to their love and devotion-the great old flag they served so well.
If we are to have a flag to show we are a member of the commonwealth, why not a special flag to show we are a member of NATO? I think the members of NATO know Canadians will be there, should the defence of western Europe make it necessary. Why should we not be asked to approve a special flag to show our membership in the United Nations? I may say that had I been in the committee which was concerned with choosing a flag I might well have suggested designs which would have shown our devotion to the United Nations-I do not know whether any were put forward or not. I think our contribution in money and in devotion to the idea of one united world might well require that we take the lead and incorporate in a new flag the United Nations banner and, in this way, let Canada be the first to recognize the brotherhood of man. But we have chosen otherwise in democratic conclave, in committee meetings. I have never been of the opinion that a committee was the best way of proceeding. I would much have pre-
Canadian Commonwealth Flag ferred that we should have discussed this matter for as long a time as was necessary and then come to a conclusion in the house. I cannot understand how we could expect 15 men chosen by parties to sit behind closed doors and decide something which we could not decide here. Nevertheless, the committee did come up with this report. We have had a debate in the house, and we have a new flag. Surely, if we thought a committee could do it, we must say they have done it.
They have made that decision. We abdicated our decision to that committee and they came out with a report and gave us a flag. They must have given us a distinctive flag, a flag to serve under and love, and one which requires no bolstering up. I am quite sure this is what the committee intended to do, because the first time the question was raised they voted 14 to 0 for this very proposition. I am not going into the motives behind their change of heart but I suggest that on that occasion they showed their true principle, which is the principle that I suggest again should lie behind this whole question.
I must get back to the proposition before us, Mr. Speaker. The amendment is, of course, a method of trying to get a little more reason out of what I consider to be an entirely impossible proposal, namely that we should have two flags. However, if we must have two flags and are back again between the devil and the deep blue sea, I suggest that the red ensign of Canada is far and away ahead of any other flag, if we must have a second, distinctive flag for our country. I am going to have to vote, and I am quite sure the people of Athabasca want me to vote on this question; they want it settled as quickly as possible. However, we cannot settle things as important as this as quickly as some people may desire, because every member of this house certainly has as much right to speak on the subject as I have. I do not think I am trying to make cloth out of old rope; I am trying to be positive. I suggest that nothing can be gained by weakening the position of our new flag and it is my hope that when I try and celebrate, as I hope to do, the new flag for our great nation we shall not be torn between that flag and a second choice of any kind. I am sure many hon. members will vote in favour of the red ensign as a second flag-I know members on both sides of the house are going to do so- but this will only be Hobson's choice.

Canadian Commonwealth Flag
I have great respect for those sections of the country which have a particular love for the old union jack. Newfoundland has not been long in the dominion, just since 1949. I hope that the way we have treated Newfoundland is appreciated and understood. We have offered them full partnership in our family. I believe nobody will deny that we have tried to be generous to them. I think we can appeal to the people of Newfoundland and say that if they feel wounded because we have turned down the idea of a secondary flag, it is because we have tried to build this country of ours into a great, united nation. I know that when the people of Newfoundland get together with those people in Canada who are not of British stock they will love them as I do, and will not forget their British heritage but will put this question in its proper perspective and put Canada first. Let us put our sentimental attachments, our family devotion, on one side and put Canada first, not only today but for ever.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today to speak on behalf of the red ensign as a symbol of Canada's relationship with the commonwealth. I would like to take a moment to express my appreciation to the voters of Waterloo South for having accorded me the honour of electing me to the House of Commons as their representative. I would also like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to all members of the house for their very kind and friendly reception. I hope it may continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: I am also extremely proud that I have been here on an historic occasion and one which will no doubt be long remembered by Canadians. I think the decision this house has made will be remembered long after the bitterness is forgotten. I am very proud to have participated in voting for the new Canadian flag. I think it is a good flag. Like most people, when I first saw it my feelings for the red ensign obscured the affection I might have had for the new flag; but every day as I look at it, it becomes more vital, it becomes stronger. I can see a united Canada in this flag and I am pleased and proud to have been able to vote for it.
[Mr. Bigg.)

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, Waterloo South is an English speaking riding. It has very strong United Empire Loyalist roots; its people are proud and hard working; it is the home of the Highland Light Infantry of Canada, a great regiment with many battle honours; it has four branches of the Canadian Legion, all of them doing extremely well; and it is proud of the red ensign. I have followed this debate with great interest and great emotion, as hon. members will understand. I have spoken to many people in Waterloo South about the flag, and their feelings regarding it. I think the people in Waterloo South recognized very early that Canada needed a new flag, a flag that would not be hyphenated, a flag that would not say "French Canada", "English Canada" or any other Canada, but only one Canada. I believe this parliament has accomplished that; we now have that flag.
The people in Waterloo South could have waited for a flag. They could have waited, because they were most reluctant to transfer their loyalty from the ensign that they love to another flag which they will learn to love. But I think it should be recognized by many of the members of this house that we could have waited. There are other members of this house who could not wait. We recognized that fact and as good Canadians we said they had real, just grievances and we were prepared to meet those grievances. I refer to the grievances of French Canada. I believe we have shown our willingness to do this. We now ask those French Canadian members of this house to recognize, much as we understood their feelings and the justice of their cause, that we have very strong and real feelings for the ensign.
We have heard them say that if another flag is necessary and there was a flag representing the world, this is the flag we should accept and honour rather than one which only recognizes our commonwealth relationships. When that day comes and that flag is ready to be accepted, a flag that represents the brotherhood of man, the universality of all people, I will be one of the first to vote for it if I am fortunate enough to be here. But until we reach that point it must be recognized that we do have a flag that means a great deal to us, a flag we have given up voluntarily on behalf of Canadian unity. I think that flag should be retained in our affection and on our flagpoles as a symbol and sign of our relationship with the British commonwealth.

It is my opinion and my feeling, and I think the feeling of many members of this house who voted on this matter, that if the red ensign is retained as a symbol of our relationship with the commonwealth, that connection with the past will go a long way toward recognizing and accepting the new flag. I would ask whether those members in this house who were so willing to ask for a new flag-and I was one of them-would be equally as willing to recognize the affection in which we hold the red ensign? If they are, then when the vote comes they will have an opportunity to heal the wounds, and we may yet reach a unanimous decision on the retention of the red ensign.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have just listened with a great deal of pleasure to the maiden speech of the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman). I should like to congratulate him on entering into the debates in this chamber. From listening to him and from having talked to him on other occasions I am expecting him to add a great deal to the deliberations of this house; and I am sure he will add to the opinions of the New Democratic party something which is required- some new ideas and a fresh outlook on life. I congratulate him on his effort today knowing, as we all do, how difficult it is to make that first speech in the House of Commons. Subsequently he may become like some of the rest of us here as the years go by, but I hope he will pick out a proper model to follow. I am not sure whether or not he will find it in his own party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I am not being discourteous to his own party, but he can make a choice from 264 other members.
I am rising to speak in this debate today, Mr. Speaker, but not because I desire to enter once more into the flag question for any purpose other than to express my regret and my sorrow that the issue has come to what I consider to be a very sorry pass. I should like to point out in the beginning, that yesterday we were prepared to bring to a vote the amendment which is now before the house to the seventh report of the committee. We had presented our case and put forward our amendment. Our members were ready for a vote last night, and I regret very much that that permission was not granted to us by other members in this house.
Canadian Commonwealth Flag
As far as our position today is concerned, hon. members in this house realize that quite a number of our members are absent attending the funeral service of Senator Homer in Saskatchewan, whom we will miss and to whom the Conservative party owes a great debt of gratitude over the years. In deference to those members who are absent we feel that the vote should not be held today because they want to record on Hansard their position regarding an issue which has concerned them very much. So let no one accuse me or anyone else of prolonging the debate today simply for the so-called purpose of filibustering; that is not in anybody's mind.


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question. I very much appreciate his remarks concerning the late Hon. Senator Horner. The late Hon. Senator was one whom I met when he first came to Ottawa as a senator, and I have known him rather well over the intervening years. May I say I also join with other hon. members in expressing my sympathy to his family.
My question is this. I quite see the difficulty which is exercising the hon. gentleman, but it would seem that delay of the vote on the amendment is probably delaying the conclusion of the pre-Christmas part of our proceedings, because several members wish to speak after it is taken, and before holding a final vote on the main motion. I am wondering whether the hon. gentleman would consider permitting the vote on the amendment to go forward on the understanding that we could then have the speeches, which I am informed are coming on the main motion, delivered today. We would, of course, understand that there would be no vote on the main motion until tomorrow, when hon. members who are away will return. Would that meet the situation which is troubling the hon. gentleman?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it would not. Our members who are away today want to vote on the amendment which we proposed yesterday; that is the point I am making. We were prepared to do this last night, but as I mentioned, last night there were two members of the Liberal party who were anxious to get the floor, which happened to be given to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). So I just wanted to make it clear, in view of all the accusations that we have had over weeks and months that we are trying to delay the business of the house, that that is not the case, and it is

Canadian Commonwealth Flag certainly not the case today. I want that thoroughly understood. However, this does not hinder me from discussing the present situation, the work of the committee, the report it made, and some other matters which I will deal with as I go along.
I notice that in its seventh report-and this has been dealt with by others-the committee started off with the proposition that the second flag to be proposed for Canada should be the Canadian red ensign. Last night the information was given to us that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deach-man) proposed that motion in the committee. Certainly as far as our members on that committee were concerned, if there had to be a second flag this is the one they favoured. Then along came the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) and reversed the position by putting before the committee an amendment which is almost word for word the resolution on the order paper which was put there six months ago. So the committee was put right back in the position which the government took six months ago. The hon. member for Leeds reversed the suggestion of his colleague for Vancouver Quadra.
Our committee representative, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), explained the position of our members on that committee and why they abstained from voting. First of all, they were of the opinion that only one flag was to be chosen. Second, when it became evident that the committee was not going along with that idea but was going to propose a second flag, they said this was just ridiculous and they were not participating in that vote in the committee. I thought that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was unfair to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton in ridiculing him the other night, or yesterday, when the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton was explaining his position as of the present moment, as contrasted with his position in the committee.
I ask, as members of the committee asked, what was the reason for suggesting that there should be two flags officially sanctioned by the parliament of Canada? When did we have to indicate by means of a special flag our allegiance to the crown? Have we not in all the years of Canada's history shown our allegiance to the crown by our activities both in war and in peace as citizens of this country? As members of parliament we swear allegiance to the sovereign. Must we now carry around a flag indicating that allegiance? It strikes me as being rather ridiculous.


What is the weakness in the proposed flag that does not show allegiance to the crown? There must be troubled consciences on the other side of the house in the Liberal party in that they must realize that the flag which they proposed and which at this present moment has not been accepted as the national flag of Canada shows only allegiance to the Liberal party. That is all it shows at the present time. It has not been accepted by parliament. It has not been authorized by the crown.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What about your co-leader?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It is the committee's flag.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The second thing is this, Mr. Speaker-I did not hear those interruptions.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It is not the flag of the Liberal party, it is the committee's flag. It is the committee's recommendation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are shielding behind the committee again. That is why an opportunity was given the other day by our amendment to the other report for members of the Liberal party to stand up and be counted with regard to whether or not they wanted to destroy the red ensign, and with one exception they said yes, we want to destroy the red ensign. They are going to have another chance this week to stand up and be counted with regard to whether or not they are going to complete the destruction of the red ensign. That is one of the purposes of the amendment now before the house.


An hon. Member:: A political purpose.


Gordon Minto Churchill: 
William Moore Benidickson: The committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -by the Liberal party shielding behind the committee has serious weaknesses. It does not show, according to the Liberal party, our allegiance to the crown. It does not show our membership in the commonwealth. I say it is not even distinctive because it closely resembles the flag of Peru with the colours red, white and red. The main difference is that the proposed Liberal flag has a larger expanse of white, but at a distance it will be hard to distinguish it from the flag of Peru. So it is not distinctive. The great search for a distinctive flag has failed. At a distance the maple leaf will not show up any more clearly than the coat of arms or diagram on the Peruvian flag.
It is much less distinctive than the present Canadian national flag, the Canadian red ensign. In the United Nations, in NATO, in the commonwealth, where flags are flown and where it counts to have a distinctive flag, the 20220-7111
Canadian Commonwealth Flag Canadian red ensign is unmistakably Canadian. It spells out the word "Canada" which we have heard about from the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) and from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). The message of Canada is spelled out right now by the present Canadian red ensign. You can examine the flags of those nations in the commonwealth, in NATO and in the United Nations and you will see that is true and that it cannot be mistaken. It stands out very clearly.
I suggest that because of these weaknesses in the flag proposed and forced on this country by the Liberal party they have tried to come up with something else that will satisfy various elements in this country, and they are suggesting to us in the seventh report of the committee that we have a second flag. The committee is suggesting that that flag should be the union jack and we are suggesting that it should be the Canadian red ensign. We would have preferred to have a flag chosen for Canada that would have incorporated the very emblem which the Liberal party now says must be shown somehow or other in Canada, namely the union jack. We would have preferred that. We wanted a flag that represented something of our history and our traditions. We wanted the union jack on it. We also wanted the fleur-de-lis and the maple leaf on it, and we have said so time and time again. If such a flag had been proposed we would not now require a second flag to show our membership in the commonwealth or our allegiance to the crown, or another flag that would convey some other meaning. But our suggestions were not accepted.
As I mentioned in an earlier speech, and I am not going to repeat what I said, we were wrong. I admitted I was wrong, along with hundreds of thousands of people in Canada, in thinking that a compromise was possible incorporating the symbols of our past history. This was the initial mistake that we made months ago. This initial mistake was carried on right down through the work of the committee. I sympathize with our members who were on that committee because they conscientiously and seriously thought that a compromise could be effected incorporating the union jack and the fleur-de-lis, as well as the maple leaf, in our flag.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a rather sad period in our history when we have to consider two flags for this country because the flag proposed by the Liberal party fails in its purpose. We have to select another flag for the reasons they have advanced. We would have preferred, as I said, one flag;

Canadian Commonwealth Flag but faced in the house with this juggernaut of the Liberal party supported by their associates, chiefly the Creditistes, we find ourselves in a situation where another flag is going to be selected by the House of Commons. Under those circumstances, then, we have to make a choice. Our choice is the preservation of the Canadian red ensign. This is the reason our amendment has been placed before the House of Commons.
I noticed that when the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) was talking, he quoted from some newspaper or other to the effect that the particular design of the flag is not of importance. This is Creditiste doctrine: Anything at all on the flag; it does not matter what is on the flag. I am surprised that the hon. member who spoke a little while ago should have quoted with approval that sentiment from some newspaper or other. Then he talked about the emergence of a new generation. I do not know which generation the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) represents. He represents an older generation than the one to which I belong. Is he a member of the new generation that is going to be in evidence in Canada now for the next 30 years? I think not. However, we hear from the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry that a new generation is now taking over. Well, who is leading this new generation-the Prime Minister of Canada? When I belonged, many years ago, to the new generation a person of his age appeared to me to be very senior indeed.
I suggest, sir, that we are going to be in difficulty in the future with regard to the two flags. Where are they to be flown? Are they to fly conjointly? What flag will be on the peace tower? Is it to be this new flag imposed by force on the Canadian people? Will we see the Canadian red ensign pulled down from the peace tower and this other flag run up which has not behind it the majority opinion in this country? The Prime Minister has said, and I could quote his exact words, that the majority of the people in this country favour a new flag. He said, as recorded on page 11148 of Hansard, that he believed the majority of Canadians wished to have a Canadian national flag which could not be mistaken for the flag of any other country. Then he picks one that looks like the flag of Peru. How does he know the majority of Canadians want this flag? Nobody knows that. We have not had an opportunity to find out, and that is the very thing to which I object. Do the majority of the people in

this country want the Canadian red ensign pulled down from the peace tower, the greatest shrine that we have in this country? This is a shrine to which hundreds of thousands of visitors come every summer as we have seen, year after year. Every public building in this country will have the Canadian red ensign pulled down, I suppose. I do not know what will be done with regard to the schools, province by province. I do not know what will be done in the court rooms of this country. What will be done in the citizenship courts? The red ensign comes down, does it, and perhaps the new flag will be put up in its place?
What happens in so many of our churches in this country in which we have deposited Canadian flags of another era representing the sacrifices of the people in wartime? Are those flags to be taken down now and replaced by this new flag? Well, the ramifications of this are not known yet to the Canadian people. We have never been a flag conscious people. We have not been saluting our flag every day. Now we are becoming flag conscious and we are going to be confused with the multiplicity of flags in this country.
I have been distressed during the course of this debate by the evident intent of the Liberal party to destroy the red ensign. I have been distressed by the references we have heard from some corners of this house to the fact that we, in the Conservative party, are not real Canadians. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire)-I regret that he is not here, although if he were I would be interrupted every other minute-stated the other day, as recorded on page 11186 of Hansard, that they are perhaps the most Canadian of Canadians. We have had suggestions from that corner of the house that just because members of the Conservative party have supported the Canadian red ensign they were not true Canadians. We, they say, are second class citizens and represent a declining minority in this house. This is the position in which we have been placed because we have fought the proposal of the Liberal party.
Now, I do not know how you determine between a real and an unreal Canadian. I do not know why the member for Lapointe and his friends consider they are more Canadian than we are. How do you become this? I thought we were attempting to recognize in this country that there was no distinction among Canadians by race, class or creed or anything else. I thought we were

all Canadians, all honouring our country, all anxious to work tor the benefit of our country and all of us honouring the crown. Why do we have to be divided into first class citizens and second class citizens? The hon. member for Lapointe and some others are going to find it very difficult indeed to relegate us to an inferior position. We will do our part, as we have done in the past, for Canada.
There has been a great deal of bitterness in the course of this debate. We are asked to forgive and forget. We saw the spectacle just the other day-though it seems longer it was only on Tuesday morning-of the Prime Minister asking not to have a vote, to all join together in favour of the flag which his party put out.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps saying the flag put out by the Liberal party, by the Prime Minister's party. The flag was put out by the committee and was voted upon by every party in the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a further point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member says "on a further point of order". Certainly the first was not one.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a new point of order I
would suggest that under the rules of the house the hon. gentleman is not speaking to the amendment that is now before the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member who has interrupted of course has a guilty conscience.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel guilty about any vote I have cast in this house, and never will. I am very proud of the vote I cast in the house. The hon. gentleman cast aspersions against every other hon. member in the house and I suggest he keep his innuendos to himself, and to those within his own party whom he has also slandered.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have offended the sensitivities of the hon. member. It is my opinion he is suffering from a guilty conscience. I am entitled to say that. I should not have said he is, but it is my opinion; and he wants to shield, as I see it, behind the committee.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Small man.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This was the purpose of the Liberal party the other day, to shield behind
Canadian Commonwealth Flag the committee, and we moved an amendment and said, "Stand up and be counted in regard to the Canadian red ensign. Put your names down on Hansard permanently with regard to the flag you are about to destroy." They were very embarrassed, and it showed. Then the Prime Minister was pleading with us to all join together, forget all these differences and join behind the flag which he, on second thought, discovered was the flag he desired. At the same time we had a noose around our necks, the noose of closure, and he was pulling on this and was throttling us. He thought we would then say, "It is all right, Mr. Prime Minister. We are sorry about all the things said in the debate and we bow to your will."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. Perhaps I should refer to the point of order raised a moment ago by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) which to some extent was justified. It seems to the Chair that the hon. member at the moment is to some extent reflecting on a vote of the house, a vote which was taken on Monday or Tuesday, and in present circumstances the debate should be restricted to the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Vic-toria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming).


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not think I was reflecting on the vote, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was stating the Prime Minister did not want to have a vote so that the names of the members of the Liberal party would not be recorded on Hansard for this generation, and subsequent generations, to see what they have done in our country.
I said that there was bitterness engendered during the course of this debate over all these months, bitterness in the hearts of many people, and sorrow in their hearts. Thousands of people in this country have been hurt by the action of the Prime Minister and it is too early to say, let us forgive and forget.
I have known nothing in the history of the world that corresponds to this action-the imposition of a flag on a country without the will of the people behind it. This has only been done by a foreign conqueror. Yet here, Canada, which resisted foreign conquerors in the past, has had imposed upon it, by the action of the Prime Minister and the Liberal party, a flag which has not been desired by the majority of the people of this country because they have had no opportunity to express their opinions on it.



Canadian Commonwealth Flag


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member again. I brought to his attention a moment ago that what he is discussing now is a subject matter on which there has been a vote of the house. What we have before us is an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, and it seems to me the hon. member is not dealing with that at the moment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There would be no need for this second report of the committee had it not been for the fact that a flag, foreign to our nature, is being imposed upon us, and I am relating it to that. I say this has been the failure of the Prime Minister. He talks about unity; he creates disunity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is attempting to impose upon Canada a flag we do not desire. He wants us all to join behind it, and then he says, let us have a second flag to placate certain elements in this country, and he confuses the issue by so doing. I think it is a real failure in statesmanship. This is not the purpose that should be served by a Prime Minister who should act for all the people of Canada and not just for party political purposes.
So let me conclude, Mr. Speaker. When people say, "Let us all rally around now and forget the past," they are speaking prematurely. I know enough about human nature to know that this particular incident will not be forgotten for many years, no matter how charitable people want to be. I tell you, sir, a hurt has been done to hundreds of thousands of people in this country, and that is not easily banished.
In this house we have suffered a political defeat which some people are crowing about. Some elements of the press are displaying, by way of cartoons, a political defeat. It is an unfortunate way to deal with an issue which has created so much trouble within this country. But, sir, if you have suffered a political defeat and have any courage in your bones the next step is defiance. I am not going to say at this moment that I will accept this flag which the Liberal party has produced-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and forced upon us.


William Moore Benidickson: The committee produced it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not going to accept it at this stage, and there will be thousands of

people who won't accept it; and we will defy the Liberal party in the future-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and make them suffer for their sins.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the flag committee I want to protest the despicable remark which the hon. member has just made, that this was a Liberal flag. This was the work of an all-party committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, there is another member who wants to shield behind the committee, and that committee was a hand picked committee. Why was that member for that party put on the committee? Why not the member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge)-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and we would have a different result.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member's remarks are not relevant to the question now before the house.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Why not the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer)?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am prepared to discuss the question before the house, but these interruptions occur and surely I am entitled to reply to them.


Reid Scott: It was a cheap, scurrilous remark.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member withdraw those remarks-cheap, scurrilous remark? Will the Speaker intervene on my behalf on this occasion?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not know to what remarks the hon. member is referring.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the Speaker did not hear. I don't know who the member was. Let him stand up and repeat that statement.
I heard it: Cheap and scurrilous remark. Has he the courage to stand up and say it?


Reid Scott: I will be happy to repeat it. The hon. member who has just spoken said that I and probably some others have tried to shelter behind the committee. I say that the committee which chose this flag consisted of members of the house who worked long, honestly and sincerely, and any reflection on that committee such as the hon. member has just made is a cheap, scurrilous, political remark.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I congratulate the hon. member on finally having the courage to stand up and say openly what he was mumbling so that Your Honour and other members could not hear.


Reid Scott: If he did not hear, I will be happy to repeat it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has the floor.


An hon. Member:: The truth hurts.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You can see how sensitive some people are with regard to these issues.


Reid Scott: We would rather be sensitive than stupid.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps Your Honour will hear those other interruptions. People are attempting to prevent me from speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But I know my rights in this house and I intend to continue. I was talking about the failure of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister in a matter which affects Canada so seriously. When I see that there is bitterness, that there is hurt, and that these things will not easily be forgotten, I ask this question: What is the next step which will be taken by the Prime Minister and by the Liberal party? They have ridden roughshod over the people in this country who respect Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that his time has expired.


John Ross Matheson: Before addressing myself directly to the question before us I should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) who spoke effectively, briefly and from the heart in a way which moved us all. I am sure the good wishes of all members of the house go to this new representative of an historic riding.
My friend the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) during his speech a little earlier in this debate talked about consistency. I would point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and a number of us who had the privilege of serving on the flag committee like to think that we have in fact been consistent. A number of years ago it was the policy of the Liberal party as, indeed, it was of other political parties, that a distinctive Canadian flag be adopted. During a general
Canadian Commonwealth Flag election in 1963-I am referring now to Liberal party policy-party literature was distributed in my own riding. Under the heading "Positive Canadianism" were these words:
The new Liberal government will submit to parliament a design for a flag which cannot be mistaken for the emblem of any other country.
These words also appear:
The union jack will be flown on appropriate occasions as a symbol of our membership in the commonwealth.
I would point out that in the sixth report of the flag committee we recommended the adoption of only one national flag. The vote was 14 to 0. I stress the word "national" because this word was used repeatedly in the course of our committee discussions. I think it is entirely consistent with the first purpose set out in the policy of the Liberal party-namely that we adopt a flag which cannot be mistaken for the emblem of any other country; in other words, a distinctive national flag.
Subsequently in the flag committee there was a motion to the effect that the government be authorized to take such steps as might be necessary to provide that the Canadian red ensign may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth and of our allegiance to the crown. This was moved by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). I did not share this view, and I may say that within our committee and within party groups throughout the process of the six weeks deliberation a number of different viewpoints were expressed from time to time. I myself moved an amendment substituting the words "royal union flag generally known as the union jack" for the words "Canadian red ensign". This amendment carried by a vote of 7 yeas to 2 nays with 5 abstentions-and the members of the official opposition have indicated they abstained on the vote. The motion as amended then carried by a vote of 8 yeas, 1 nay with the same 5 abstentions.
I think therefore that the position we have taken as a party and the one I have taken personally is a position which has been entirely consistent. Perhaps it would be helpful to explain why I moved an amendment against the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, to substitute the royal union flag for the suggested Canadian red ensign. I think it is clear that in the sixth committee report, the report which on Tuesday was adopted by this house in convincing

Canadian Commonwealth Flag fashion, what we did was establish a national flag clearly distinguishable from the flag of any other country. I do not pay particular attention to comments with respect to its similarities to other flags; I can assure hon. members that the committee spent six weeks considering this matter very carefully. Incidentally the design finally approved was suggested as early as March, 1964, by a former lieutenant colonel in the army, a man with seven years historical training at Oxford; he is a Canadian with an exceptional academic background.
Why would it be inappropriate at this time to approve an amendment respecting the Canadian red ensign as the flag to denote our relation with the commonwealth and with the Queen? I think it is perfectly clear we wanted one national flag, not two; and the Canadian red ensign is, after all, the "Canadian" red ensign. If we brought this flag back now all we would be doing, in effect, would be to create two national flags.
We have heard a great deal of argument, particularly from the official opposition, that two flags are a mistake. I think it would be wrong certainly to have two national flags. However, I am not against several flags for different purposes. I think that is entirely proper. The hon. member for Athabasca referred to the flag of the Hudson's Bay Company. Many old companies have their own flags. The provinces have flags, in several cases, and a number of municipal corporations have their own flags. We know there is a NATO flag which occasionally flies here in Ottawa and elsewhere over our various headquarters. And there is, of course, the United Nations flag which, I am glad to say, flies over some schools in Brockville. This is a sign of the times. Flags serve various purposes. But surely it is our purpose to have one national flag. Many years ago we obtained permission to use the red ensign by an admiralty warrant granted on the 2nd day of February 1892. I have studied the communication that was sent to Evan MacGregor by the under secretary of state, colonial office, dated February 2, 1892, where they answer the query as to whether it would be possible for a warrant to be granted empowering ships of Canadian registry to fly the red ensign of the royal navy defaced with the arms of the dominion. Although there were strong objections to any defacement of the traditional sea flag, as a result of strong representation from Canada permission was in fact granted. May I read to the house the significant words 

of the admiralty warrant of that date. It says:
Whereas we deem it expedient that Canadian registered vessels shall be permitted to wear the red ensign of Her Majesty's fleet with the Canadian coat of arms on the fly thereof.
We do therefore by virtue of the power and authority vested in us hereby warrant and authorize the red ensign of Her Majesty's fleet with the Canadian coat of arms in the fly, to be used on board vessels registered in the dominion.
Perhaps because I was raised as a boy in Quebec city and spent a good deal of time, as a young fellow, on the water I have always been led to think that the merchant service flag is a sea flag. If anybody has any doubt in this matter I suggest that they read the important text "Flags of the World" edited by H. Gresham Carr, in which he sets out the various countries of the commonwealth that use the red ensign for specifically that purpose. I am not going to take any more of the time of the house to dwell on that aspect of the matter. However, Mr. Speaker, may I raise the question as to the proprieties, in contrast to the Canadian red ensign, of using the union jack for the specific purposes which have been set out in this report. May I refer to correspondence respecting the flag to be flown on land by British subjects. A letter was written by John F. Stedman of Ebenezer, Saskatchewan, Canada, March 11, 1911, to the secretary of His Imperial Majesty, King George V, in effect asking what flag was appropriate for Canadians to fly. The answer was given by L. Harcourt in a letter addressed to His Excellency, Right Hon. Earl Grey, G.C.M.G., C.G.V.O., etc. May I read to the house the substance of the communication which came from Downing street under the date May 21, 1912. This communication is to the Governor General, His Royal Highness, the Duke of Connaught and of Strathearn, K.G., K.T., K.P. It says:
I have the honour to transmit to Your Royal Highness a copy of a letter from Mr. G. S. Hodgins in regard to the flag which should be used by private persons who are British subjects.
2. I should be glad if you would be good enough to cause Mr. Hodgins to be informed that the union flag is the national flag of Canada as of all other parts of His Majesty's dominions, and may be flown on land by all British subjects: and that the red ensign, with the arms of the dominion of Canada in the fly, is intended to be used only by Canadian merchant vessels.
X have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your Royal Highness's most obedient, humble servant,
L. Harcourt.

Perhaps my hon. friends on the opposite side will suggest that this is a little out of date, but I would point out to them that those members on the government side of the house who have been interested in this important matter for not only some weeks or months but indeed years have gone into this question rather thoroughly and have been advised by a great many authorities to which we referred that the union flag is an appropriate flag in these circumstances for any subject of Her Majesty anywhere in the commonwealth of nations. It is perfectly true, as certain hon. gentlemen have indicated, that in recent years it has become popularly thought of as the flag of the United Kingdom, but this is not legally its status.
May I give the house the view of a knowledgeable Canadian, Alan B. Beddoe, O.B.E., who served for some years as commander in the navy and has done a great deal of research on this subject. His views are expressed in this way:
In the first place, the so-called "union jack" Is actually a "royal badge", usually applied to a banner or flag, or as an "augmentation of honour" to certain coats of arms...It is today one of Her Majesty's personal badges. It is not, as is erroneously thought by many, the flag of all British people everywhere, in spite of its long and unauthorized use in this way. Since its advent on January 1, 1801, no permission has been given by the crown for the public at large to display it, except by King George V in 1933, when His late Majesty declared that the "union" might be flown publicly on the national day and on the King's birthday, the national day in this case being St. George's day and St. Andrew's day. The "union" is not the national flag of the United Kingdom, as many are prone to believe, for the simple fact is that the United Kingdom has no national flag. England has one, and Scotland, but not the U.K.
This is perhaps a purist view, but we are hearing here the opinion of a recognized authority on the matter. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to something that has come to us under the hand of Sir Anthony Wagner, Garter, Principal King of Arms, under date May 26, 1964. After all, he is Her Majesty's highest heraldic authority; it is his responsibility to offer advice on these matters. I think that what he says here tends to confirm in general what we have read in various flag texts as, for instance, the Observer's "Book of Flags'', wherein it is stated that the union jack now is commonly used as the flag of the United Kingdom and a flag of the commonwealth of nations. Sir Anthony Wagner puts it this way:
The difference between the arms of England and the St. George's cross, or between the present
Canadian Commonwealth Flag royal standard and union flag is not a difference of ownership, but a difference in the uses to which they are applied by the sovereign to whom they alike belong.
One sometimes sees a distinction drawn in this context between the sovereign and the nation, on the lines that the royal standard is the sovereign's flag but the union the nation's. Such a distinction is alien to our constitution. For us the sovereign is the representative of the nation and the nation has and can have no flag but the sovereign's.
That is the view of Sir Anthony Wagner namely that the union flag is the flag of the sovereign. I listened carefully to my friend the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) last night and I thought he made a very logical and compelling address on this matter. I think one might reasonably contend that we do not need any symbol of commonwealth association to prove our loyalties to this commonwealth family of nations, and indeed the flag which we have selected as our national flag is a perfectly appropriate banner and will always be so regarded as an indication of the devotion of loyal Canadians, to the sovereign of Canada.
A few minutes ago we heard a respected privy councillor in this house who had served in world war I, and I believe in world war II as well, speaking feelingly with respect to symbols of the past. I am not in his age group; I am perhaps in between being old and being young. I am sure that for my children the Canadian flag alone would be quite adequate, but I believe there are many Canadians who will want this other symbol, the union jack preserved. Certainly in our churches, Legion halls and places like this there will be a great wish to preserve some precious symbol of this association which we value and treasure.
In conclusion, I would point out this interesting fact relating to flags authorized in war. On June 3, 1963, question No. 142 asked the government:
What flags, or flags, were flown by the armed forces of Canada in world war I and world war II, and upon what authority?
The answer with respect to world war I is quite categorical: "The Canadian army flew the union jack." I am quite prepared to concede that there may have been occasions when other flags were flown, but this was the official answer. With regard to world war II the answer was:
The union flag (jack) which was the flag officially prescribed in king's regulations and orders, 1939, for the Canadian army until superseded by the Canadian red ensign.
Hon. members will, of course, recall that on January 22, 1944 the Liberal government

Canadian Commonwealth Flag made provision for the Canadian red ensign to be flown by all units of the Canadian army serving with the forces of other nations.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is surely not the case of tearing down the Canadian red ensign. I am sure that we have enough wisdom and reverence for the past that at commemorative ceremonies and at places hallowed in the memories of those who fought in world wars I and II we will drape both flags at appropriate sites of remembrance. But as a continuing recollection of our British associations, of which we are so proud, I am sure that many of us will be very happy-certainly the people in Leeds constituency, which is a noted United Empire Loyalist community, will be-about flying with our new Canadian flag the old union flag of our sovereign. I think that in my constituency the union jack will always fly, and I am sure in other parts of Canada this will be so, as well.
I know we have heard expressions from certain members which indicate that this would not be acceptable to them. However, I would ask my good friends from the province of Quebec, who are not on this side but on the other side of the house, those not sympathetic to this view, to remember that being generous is the only way to build this nation. I think the French speaking people in Canada are as generous, as understanding and as sympathetic as any of us. Perhaps this is one of the characteristics of an ethnic minority. Perhaps they are more sensitive, more kindly, and more understanding of the feelings of others. So in order not to perpetuate two national flags I would ask hon. members to vote down this amendment and be prepared to show a generous support for an ancient banner, which has been described by Sir Anthony Wagner and the authorities to whom I have referred as being a royal badge.


David Vaughan Pugh: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Ross Matheson: Yes, certainly.


David Vaughan Pugh: I just want him to clear up one point. The hon. member was talking about the older people and he referred to the Legion and to churches and said they might want to fly a flag. To which flag is the hon. member referring?


John Ross Matheson: On every official building under the control and auspices of the Canadian government-for example post offices, armouries and buildings like that-naturally our national flag would fly. But I agree that there are many occasions when the union
[Mr. Matheson.l

flag could be flown; in some places it will continue to fly anyway. We are not going to find much change regarding the flying of the union jack, which I think is a good thing. In this connection, I cannot imagine the Carle-ton county home making any change.
May I point out in reply to the proposition of my hon. friend that there is a theory with respect to flags to the effect that a flag once in existence never really ceases to exist. My children go to a Gaelic college every summer and the flag flown there is always the St. Andrew's cross. I have friends who regularly attend the St. George's society, and the flag they fly is still the fine old flag of England. I am sure that in other places we will find the historic old flag of France. These flags are flown for a particular and peculiar purpose. The union flag has special recognition accorded to it in the permissive terms of the motion, but it does not conflict with or in any way diminish the importance of our national flag. This is exactly in accordance with the hopes and aspirations of King George V as he indicated in conversations prior to his death. I have as authority for that one Lewis Grant McNab, 4250 Sherbrooke street west, Montreal 6, Quebec, if the hon. member is interested.


David Vaughan Pugh: I just wanted a short answer to my question, Mr. Speaker. I did mention the Legion and churches. The hon. member also mentioned the older people, shall we call them the older generation, and contrasted them with the young people. Is he suggesting that the royal union flag should be flown over Legions?


John Ross Matheson: By the law of our Canadian realm a subject is free to fly any flag he wishes so long as it does not convey an erroneous message. I submit that, in those circumstances, that liberty is not being interfered with by the action we are taking. The clause creates a special permissive use and gives us a guide as to what is appropriate with regard to any occasion relating to our British connection or to Her Majesty.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak in this debate, and our group had agreed not to delay further the discussion on the amendment proposed by the Conservative party concerning the red ensign.
But after the Conservative leader told us that we must absolutely continue this debate until at least six o'clock, I would like to take a few minutes to state once more the views

of our party concerning this amendment which was moved by the Conservatives.
First of all, I thought that after such a long fight to obtain a distinctive national flag the government would rest after such a painful labour without making a mess of everything and giving new headaches to the house with its second resolution, by endeavouring to have us accept through the back door a second flag for Canada.
Everyone knows our views on this matter. Every time we spoke on the flag issue, we plainly stated that we wanted only one distinctive national flag for Canada.
That is the fight we led throughout. We were accused of supporting the party in power in order to ensure the success of that idea. We did not accept anything, either from the party in power or from any other group. We merely defended the views of our constituents, the views of our province, and we finally accepted the opinion of the majority of the house, and we were very happy in doing so. I must congratulate the Conservative members who accepted the vote; I heard some this afternoon say that they accepted the decision of the majority, and I am happy to congratulate them for that.
I sincerely hope that this new flag will bring complete unity in Canada from one ocean to the other. I deplore that the Prime Minister and his government have brought forth this second resolution which was disapproved during our discussions on this second resolution dealing with a second flag, under the pretext that it would show our membership in the commonwealth nations.
In this respect I believe that the Conservative amendment does not make any more sense than the proposal of the Prime Minister concerning the adoption of the union jack, while the Conservatives propose the red ensign. Where is the difference between the two?
The union jack would bring back the memories of the colonialism we rejected in 1945 after the developments which then occurred. I congratulate those men who then set aside the union jack in order to adopt a new flag which was accepted at that time-namely, the red ensign. Today, there are those who would bring us back to the days of colonialism. We refuse to accept this.
The Conservative party offers us the red ensign which has been flying over Canada for the last 24 years. I am not ready to admit that the Conservatives are really wrong. As a matter of fact, I believe that the red ensign would more adequately represent our membership in the commonwealth than the union
Canadian Commonwealth Flag jack, since the red ensign, if it were approved, is, at least, a commercial flag, and would therefore stand for our commercial and military union with the other commonwealth countries. Neither would I say that the Conservatives are wrong in comparison with the Liberals, because I think that even if parliament were to accept the Conservative suggestion and retain the red ensign, that flag would be more acceptable than the union jack.
The red ensign, which was accepted in 1945, has just been put aside by parliament -which does not mean that we spurn it, nor indeed, the union jack-because this country is entering a new period of evolution in order to grow and attain a new status in the eyes of the world.
We were glad to accept this evolution, as were the parliamentarians of 1945 when they accepted the red ensign as a symbol of a new evolution in Canadian politics. We were very pleased with this evolution. We always worked in that direction, and we supported the government with all our might so that the single red maple leaf flag might become a reality throughout Canada.
Now, it has become a reality, and we are proud of that. I congratulate all members of the House of Commons who now support the decision of the committee, for I am not ready to say, as some claim, that this is a government flag. No, far from it. This is the flag of the committee specifically appointed to choose a design. We have agreed with the committee proposals to the effect that we accept this design.
Therefore, it is not the flag of one party in particular. It is the flag that stands for the national concept. We represent here the Canadian nation as a whole, the people of all provinces. We have had a majority vote and, as in all sound democracies, we must accept the wish of the majority, and this was accepted by most. I find there are but a few exceptions, people who have probably been in politics too long to keep pace with the evolution now taking place. That is somewhat the impression I get from those who are telling us today: we do not accept this flag.
I blame those old people who lack the required flexibility to get behind our new nation, which has taken a real step towards an evolution that will prove beneficial to the Canadian people.
As I said, if the house could accept a second flag to show our membership in the commonwealth of nations-I am saying if
11254	HOUSE OF
Canadian Commonwealth Flag parliament could accept, could order-because I believe that parliament does not have the necessary powers to dictate anything to the commonwealth of nations, no more than this parliament has the power to impose a flag on NATO or the United Nations-it is up to the council of the commonwealth of nations to select an emblem for itself, and if and when they do make a selection we will accept it as we have accepted all the emblems of the organizations to which Canada belongs.
I have yet to see this parliament refuse to accept the emblem of the organizations which Canada has voluntarily and deliberately joined. When we reach the stage where such a decision should be taken, when all commonwealth countries will have decided upon a flag, no matter if it is the British flag, the red ensign or another one, it will be up to them and not to us to make such a decision, for we are not even entitled to decide upon such a matter. Why then is the Prime Minister and his cabinet so bent on doing something which we are not empowered to do? What strikes me and startles me is to see our governors so determined to take the place of others and decide for them while they are only associated with other countries composing the British commonwealth, countries who have to decide for themselves what emblem they should have.
I am not against an emblem representing all commonwealth countries or the commonwealth partnership. And I am also very proud to see the United Nations flag. We accepted it without the slightest action on the part of parliament, just as we do not need any legislation in order to accept the emblem for all commonwealth countries. I maintain that it does not rest with the Canadian parliament to choose this emblem.
I heard my friends opposite suggest that the union jack has always been considered generally as the flag of the commonwealth of nations. I would ask them to show me at least the resolution carried by all commonwealth countries which have agreed to recognize the union jack as the emblem of the commonwealth. If they are able to show it to me, I will be the first to follow them; but if they are unable to do that, we will maintain that the union jack represents England, which is our ally within the commonwealth. If, one day, it is decided to choose an emblem for the commonwealth, we will support it willingly, without need for regulations or laws. We will willingly support the decision of the commonwealth, as we accept


the decisions of all the associations of which Canada is a member.
Mr. Speaker, in short, we do not support the Conservatives' amendment, not because it is weaker than the government's resolution, because in itself, the Conservatives' argument is stronger, but mostly for this reason: if the government lacks the power to propose the resolution, it also lacks the power to legislate on the amendment. The decision is not up to the government. We shall not support the amendment nor the resolution for the same reasons, because we feel that it is the responsibility of the leaders of the countries within the commonwealth of nations to select their own symbol. It is in that light that we consider the situation.
As for the second reason, to indicate our allegiance to the crown, we claim that if the Queen of England remains the queen of that country under the folds of the flag of England, why then would the Queen of Canada not remain the Queen of our country under the folds of the distinctive Canadian flag? Why again take a flag from our English friends to show the allegiance of Canada to their Queen? If the union jack can represent the allegiance of the English people to their sovereign, I maintain that our flag can indicate our allegiance to the Queen of Canada. Why was it chosen, if it is unable to represent us?
Mr. Speaker, this is all I wanted to say about the Conservative amendment and, for the above-mentioned reasons, we will not support the amendment nor the resolution which should never have been introduced, because it only spreads more confusion.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, it is now a quarter after five, and I realize that this house will rise at six o'clock. I desire to make some comments at this time, but I should like to point out sincerely that I have no intention or any desire to prevent a vote being taken on the amendment before the house. I realize that there are a large number of members in this house now in western Canada paying their last respects, not only to a late senator of this country, but paying tribute and honour to two sons and a nephew who are members of this house. I understand that a vote will not be taken under any circumstances today, and I admire the members of the house for their fine show of magnanimity and spirit in this connection. I, therefore, am prepared to make a few remarks on this amendment today knowing that

when I speak I am not deliberately postponing a vote. I sincerely hope that the comments I have to make will be received in the spirit in which they are uttered.
I am a Presbyterian, Mr. Speaker, whose family has lived for almost 200 years in the valleys of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers. We first came into this country in 1792 by coming down the Richelieu from Vermont, following the American revolution, and the family spread down the Richelieu to its mouth, and up and down the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa, ultimately as far as Shawville. I am proud to say that my mother, who is still living at 85 years of age, was a cousin of the late Senator Ralph Byron Horner. We all came out of the Ottawa valley together. The fact that the senator was named Ralph Byron Horner, that one of our members here is Ralph Horner and my name is Ralph Cowan is no coincidence. There has been marriage and intermarriage up and down the Ottawa, up and down the St. Lawrence and our people know one another. All of these people lived on both sides of these three grand rivers, the Richelieu, the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa.
Now, when I tell you I am a Presbyterian, I should like to point out that since I was first elected to the house the members have been kind enough to make me a member of the private bills committee on two different occasions. I have found it very interesting to deal with the business coming before that committee. Amongst the bills coming before it have been bills involving religious denominations. In every case, those who were intensely interested in the subject of a bill took an interest in seeing it passed through the committee and then through the house. Those whose religion was slightly different remained quiet and provided the necessary majority for their friends who wished to have some work done.
I make no apology, when discussing an amendment to the flag resolution, for referring to these religious incorporations which have come before the private bills committee, and for this very simple reason. I believe that most men and women hold their religious convictions and their patriotic feelings practically on the same plane. The congregations to which I have belonged in the past-and at the present time I am a member of Victoria Presbyterian church in west Toronto- honour the battle flags of many battalions by enshrining them in the sanctuaries of the churches. I refer to this fact to show you that there is an intermingling of the spirit of patriotism and religious fervor that you can-
Canadian Commonwealth Flag not separate, and God help the country where the two are ever rent asunder.
As a Presbyterian working on the private bills committee, I had the honour of helping to pass through the house a bill regarding the Canadian conference of the Brethren in Christ Church, which received royal assent on June 18, 1964. During the discussion in committee on that bill, those of other than the Roman Catholic faith took part quite actively, and it received the assent the sponsors so greatly desired. Then, we had another bill coming before the committee which received royal assent on September 16, 1964, one respecting the Congregation of the Marist Sisters, who were transferring their headquarters from the province of New Brunswick to the city of Hull in Quebec. When the private bills committee met on two separate occasions, I regret to advise the house that we did not have a quorum. I, a Presbyterian, went out in the highways and byways as we have been instructed to do in the Bible and brought in a quorum. The quorum came in and this bill was discussed in great detail by those greatly interested in the work of the Congregation of the Marist Sisters. It was beautiful to see the feeling that existed between the members of the committee, in that there was no criticism of that bill by other than Roman Catholics, and the Roman Catholic supporters then put their bill through and had majority support all the way.
Again, in the private bills committee, we had a bill come forward known as The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada, Bill S-17. This was a bill that was of the greatest possible interest to Protestants on the committee, and I can only report honestly that there was quite a bit of discussion on that bill. This discussion took place entirely among Protestant members of the committee. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) and myself took an active stand in the matter, and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) was opposed to our attitude, but the Good News Broadcasting Association bill did not receive assent. It did not get third reading in the house due to the discussion engaged in by Protestant members of the committee, and I stand here and publicly thank the Roman Catholic members of that committee, and those of other religious faiths, who provided the necessary quorum, and the necessary votes; and the action that a majority wanted to see taken, was taken.
You may remember that the matter came up right on the floor of the house-

Canadian Commonwealth Flag


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I realize the hon. member's remarks are introductory in nature, but the introduction is getting rather long and I would ask him to get to the meat of the subject.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Sir, I thank you for the reference to the introduction that I wish to make. Might I have this extra paragraph? I have mentioned that I am a Presbyterian. Some people call us continuing Presbyterians but I do not use that title. Some Presbyterians prior to 1924 discontinued and joined the United Church, but the Presbyterians went right on as they had been going for generations.
In 1924 on the floor of the House of Commons a bill was presented for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada. I was 22 years of age at the time, and I wish to state with all the sincerity I possess that I never held the parliament of Canada in higher esteem than at that time. We were told that the Roman Catholic members of the Canadian House of Commons practically withdrew from the house when the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada was brought forward. Feelings ran very, very high but they were not feelings between those of the Catholic faith and those of other denominations. The feelings were in the other denominations.
I checked this point at the supper hour last night with the former hon. member for Marquette, Manitoba, hon. Senator T. A. Crerar, now in his eighty eighth year, and asked him if I was not correct in my understanding that in 1924, when the United Church of Canada Act was passed through the house, the Roman Catholic members stood aside.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair is prepared to be lenient with the hon. member but I would ask him to be relevant to the question before the house.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Thank you, sir. I will say that my preface has been completed. Senator Crerar confirmed the opinion that I had, and that many millions of people had at that time.
Now I come to the meat of the subject. I am one who cast a vote in the house, when there were very few members present during discussion of private bills, to change the name of T.C.A. to Air Canada. I am the one who cast the deciding vote in the railway committee to have two French Canadians on the board of directors of the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We helped you; we were there too.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I said I am one. The vote was 8 to 7, but I had people come to me and say, "Cowan, we did not expect you to vote that way." I think that is enough for a preface.
The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Lan-glois), who was a member of the flag committee, spoke in the house last night and, as recorded at page 11156 of Hansard, he stated, in connection with the deliberations of the flag committee:
-I can even say that the selection of such a flag brought tears to the eyes of many.
I believe the hon. member for Megantic wholeheartedly when he makes that report. I know it to be a fact also that there were tears in the eyes of many not on the flag committee. It was nice to know members of the committee were that much affected by the emotions of patriotism.
The hon. member for Megantic went on to say:
On the other hand, today we are presented with a flag which has so many ties for some groups across the country that it is intended to impose it as a second flag-
As a member of the house, as one who admires those members who use another tongue than mine, as one who has lived in peace and amity with them all my life, and will live on in that spirit for the remainder of the years which the Lord may give me, I, in all sincerity, in a question involving as much emotion as patriotism and in a question which, as the hon. member for Megantic said, did bring tears to the eyes of the members of the flag committee-and I can assure you it brings tears to the eyes of many citizens of the Dominion of Canada-wish to make a request.
We had the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) rise in his place the other night, a member of the official opposition, and ask the cabinet to impose the rule of closure. We have had the Prime Minister of this country rise in his place and ask if members of the House of Commons would not consider, if they could not vote for the one leaf flag design, to refrain from voting so, as he put it, there would not be a mark showing they had voted against what he stated at that time would be the national flag of Canada within short order.
We had voted in the House of Commons for a distinctive new national flag. If it is passed by the Senate by this time it is the official national flag of Canada today, and

it will be so honoured by the residents of the dominion. Now we have the opportunity of voting on a second flag. This was not my idea. The idea of two flags was introduced on May 28 and the resolution was divided into two on June 15. We are now considering the report of a flag committee that has recommended that there be two flags, and on the seventh report of that committee an amendment has been moved that the Canadian red ensign be chosen as a flag to show our allegiance to the British crown and our loyalty to the commonwealth.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) has been frank enough to state publicly on the floor of the house that he will not be voting on the amendment. I ask those French speaking Canadians who are members of the House of Commons if they will not seriously consider the action of those members of the House of Commons, in 1924, who absented themselves from the house? The total vote at that time was 148 out of a membership of 235, and those members allowed the question of a Protestant denomination being newly incorporated to be decided by that element in the house.
Now we are into a situation where speaker after speaker has referred to the union jack as a foreign flag. They refer to it as the flag of England. They refer to it as the flag of Great Britain, and others refer to it as the flag of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. We who love the two flags that have flown over this country in the past, and which are still unfurled to the breeze, ask those of our compatriots in the house who are so wholeheartedly in favour of the one maple leaf flag, which the House of Commons has declared to be the official national flag of Canada and which will be so honoured in the future by all citizens, to abstain from voting and allow us who love the two old flags and hold them so dear, to make the decision to show which shall be the flag demonstrating our allegiance to the crown and our membership in the British commonwealth of nations.
I have never asked any favour of any man. I find it hard to ask a favour tonight but I would remind you, of the words of Burke, who, when speaking on the subject known today as conciliation with America said:
Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, it is not my desire to hold up in any way the proceedings in the debate on
Canadian Commonwealth Flag this amendment, but I did not speak in the debate on the first part of the flag question and I think I might be permitted to say a few words at this time.
I have been distressed at the perseverance of some members of the house in their abusive attitude towards the fairly chosen selection of the flag committee which was approved by the house the other night. I thought, therefore, I would speak for a minute or so today. I do so, though my remarks do not represent the ripened fruits of meditation; I have not had the opportunity to give much time to the consideration of exactly what I would say. Nevertheless there are certain views I would express.
For Canada I see shadows, clouds and darkness if the efforts of some to divide this country are not abandoned. I can understand that in the highly emotional atmosphere which existed during the first part of this flag debate feelings could easily carry one away. But now we have come to the second part of the resolution we should, I think, all attempt to take a broad view of the situation, and seek to reach a decision on a suitable second flag to mark our commonwealth connection with singular unanimity and enthusiasm. It seems to me unfortunate that the house should appear to be divided on the question of whether the union jack or the red ensign would best serve our country for this purpose. While I am of Irish descent myself I do not accept the proposition that any member of this house holds any higher regard for our historic relationship with the British isles and with Britain. In Nova Scotia, which is my province, we have always been closer to England than have some other parts of this country because of our geographical proximity, because most of the inhabitants of our province are of British descent and because of our close and historic trade ties. Joseph Howe, whom I will quote later in my remarks, said more than a hundred years ago that loyalty to our British connection is, in Nova Scotia, an enduring sentiment. And I think it remains an enduring sentiment today some 120 years after his remark was made.
I am quick to admit I would have had difficulty in voting for the selection of a totally distinctive and new Canadian flag if the union jack was not also to be recognized by this legislation. I was in this position: I felt we did need a distinctive flag, one which could not be mistaken in any part of the world for the flag of another country, but at the same time all my background and

Canadian Commonwealth Flag all my Nova Scotian sentiment favoured the reflection in some symbol of this country of a continuing connection with our mother country. I believe that the union jack which has been selected as the symbol of our commonwealth connection serves this purpose admirably. In these circumstances I felt I could vote for the selection of a distinctive flag. I believe most Nova Scotians would agree with me that we should have some symbol of our association with the commonwealth. I also believe that many Nova Scotians agree there is a need for a totally distinctive Canadian flag. In this regard I would quote the words of the hon. Robert L. Stanfield, premier of Nova Scotia, for whom I have great respect, although he is not of the same political faith as myself. Speaking on April 6, he said:
Surely, however, it is not necessarily patriotic for me to insist that something I value highly must be adopted as a national symbol if it is objectionable as a national symbol to a large number of Canadians. Surely the Canadian thing for us to do is to find symbols which are mutually acceptable. Let us emphasize what we have in common. Surely we could have a national anthem and a flag which unites Canada.
Those were the words of the premier of Nova Scotia and while I do not dare speak for him I should be surprised if he, like many Nova Scotians, did not feel there is a place for a commonwealth flag, a flag which does show our tradition and our history.
In the course of a few minutes I will deal with the question whether that role is best fulfilled by the union jack or by the red ensign. Let me say that the selection of a distinctive flag is another step, although an important one, in the development of our nation, even as the change from the almost universal use of the union jack to a partial use of the red ensign was an earlier step. I had the opportunity of spending four weeks in the British House of Commons last spring in connection with the commonwealth parliamentary association and I came back from that visit with, if anything, even stronger feelings about our association with Britain than I previously felt. I treasure our relationship with the mother country and I do not accept the view that the use of a distinctive Canadian flag will in any way lessen those feelings or dishonour our relationship.
Let us now consider why we should choose the union jack rather than the red ensign. In the first place, the red ensign has been the Canadian flag since 1945 when it was adopted by order in council. The union jack has been the flag recognized as the symbol

of the empire, and subsequently of the commonwealth, across the world from a much earlier date than that. The selection of the union jack would, I suggest, perpetuate our association with the British isles. The red ensign is a variation of that flag. I have no strong feelings on the question of whether the red ensign or the union jack should be the commonwealth flag. But on balance, after weighing the arguments in each direction, I have no difficulty in making my choice in favour of the union jack. If we wish to retain a symbol of all our past, of all the years of our past, what better symbol could there be than the flag which flew here on this hill in 1867, long before the red ensign had come ashore? At that time the union jack was the flag which reigned in Canada, as it was for a large part of our history. So if we are to choose a symbol of our past, why choose something which is a symbol of only part of our past? Why not designate the flag which flew at the time of confederation-a flag which to this day is used in my province, I would say, more widely than is the red ensign. I think the same is true of the other maritime provinces.
The red ensign, though of more recent vintage, deserves honour and respect. But even the words of the order in council at the time it was adopted show that it was to be of a transitory nature. On the other hand the union jack has always been flown in this country. It was under this flag that British justice and British culture spread across the world creating the political climate under which free nations such as Canada have been able to grow and prosper. I think it more fitting that the union jack should be selected as the flag symbolizing our ties with the commonwealth. The hopes and aspirations of the people who founded this federation were fulfilled under the union jack.
These are the few words I wanted to say on this subject today, Mr. Speaker. In common with all members of this house, I am sure, I am extremely grateful to the many Canadians who took the time and trouble to write to us during the months the flag question was topical in this nation, to express their views and help us in reaching our decisions. I received many letters on this subject. There were many letters that favoured the selection of a totally new flag, many that favoured the retention of the red ensign, many that favoured other designs. With regard to those who wrote to me in favour of the red ensign or the retention of a flag that

contained the union jack, I hope they will in time see, as I honestly feel, that we are right and that their purpose and desire to not tear away the ties of history is best expressed by the adoption of the union jack as the commonwealth flag; but that as a great and growing nation of citizens of many races we need and badly need, a flag which will be recognized in all parts of the world as nothing but Canadian.
Speaking of the people who did write to me on this subject and specifically those who favoured the red ensign. I know that many of them, as is the case with many of my good friends on the Conservative side of the house, had strong, honest, sincere and deep feelings on the matter. On the day we had the flag vote, I received from a friend of mine, with whom I grew up from early boyhood, a telegram which read:
It is not right that the red ensign which is treasured and loved by so many Canadians throughout the country should be taken from us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Yet, while I honour his views I feel that had he been here and had the opportunity to participate in this parliament and spend two or more years in Ottawa, his views of the nation as it exists, how it is evolving and where it is going might have been different. I hope he will find as time passes that what he is concerned about, namely not abandoning our past, is dealt with adequately by our legislation with reference to the union jack.
My final words will be in support of a suggestion that has been made by two or three members who spoke about the red ensign in the general debate on the first part of the resolution. I agree that the ensign did serve as this country's flag for a period of time, and when the legislation on the flag passes the Senate and comes into force and the ensign is lowered from the tower of this building, let it be done in dignity and let it then be conveyed with pomp and ceremony to an appropriate site of permanent honour.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) wants to take the floor, and during the few moments I have I would like to set forth a few ideas.
As most hon. members know, I was chosen to represent my party on the flag committee. I took part in the discussions of the committee
Canadian Commonwealth Flag and I had to take a stand on several occasions. It is precisely about that stand that I wish to speak briefly for a few minutes.
By concurring in the sixth report, we voted for a distinctive national flag, and as far as I am concerned, I am convinced that it is our distinctive national flag which will remain.
I must pay a tribute for that to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and those who followed him in this venture, for it was really a venture. I also want to pay a tribute to him for having had the courage, at this stage of Canadian history, to initiate those talks and, even at the risk of being the only French Canadian to support the second proposal, namely to adopt this emblem of our membership in the commonwealth, I will do it, if it were only to prove to the other members of the committee that I keep my word, that I abide by the opinions I set forth, and somehow to show them my unique faith in the circumstances. On the other hand, I would not like my words to be construed as meaning that this profession of faith or of opinion merely expresses my gratitude to the government or is inspired by the fact that at any time during the debate, I might have come to an arrangement with the government.
Far from it, but in the light of everything that has been said during those long debates and, as the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) explained so well a while ago, perhaps the government did not need a symbol to represent our allegiance to the commonwealth. I hope that Canada will take the initiative-I know that the right hon. Prime Minister is able to do so-to suggest at the next conference of the commonwealth which should take place very soon, the adoption of a symbol which could help the countries of the commonwealth to join in a trade bloc, because after all the commonwealth is, for all practical purposes, an economic union comparable to the union of South American states and that of European countries which is known as the common market.
It might be useful and wise for all these countries to unite and adopt a symbol to identify them and draw them closer in the policies they wish to adopt and implement.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, we are asked today to adopt a symbol of our membership in the commonwealth, which symbol I expect will only be temporary, because in years to come we will probably see this very commonwealth adopt a symbol of its own and, ipso facto, the symbol we are asked to adopt today will automatically be replaced.

Canadian Commonwealth Flag
Mr. Speaker, I also feel that all Quebeckers, even if they think that this question of an emblem to represent our membership in the commonwealth perhaps is not so important and, after all, does not mean very much, will appreciate that for the rest of English speaking Canadians, it will possibly be easier for them to accept, in coming years, this new distinctive Canadian flag we adopted last Monday night. In fact, if in order to be able to accept it gradually and more easily, they have to keep some symbol, I feel that to a certain extent-and that is my personal opinion-it would ill beseem us to deny them the right to a symbol which might, for a little longer, remind them of their past and their attachment to the British empire.
As for us, in Quebec, I think that it leaves us somewhat cold, because many generations ago, we cut our links with our mother country, which was France at the very beginning. Besides, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that, on the matter of feelings toward our mother countries, the Quebec group is probably two generations ahead. In fact, I am sure that two generations ago, if we had wanted to choose a national and distinctive flag, it is very likely that the citizens of our province would have asked for a symbol of France on their flag.
But with the years, with the rising generations, such feelings have come to pass, and I am sure that with our present youth, and in the years to come, the new flag we have adopted will be accepted and will become something genuinely Canadian, while the symbol we want to accept at the present time, to indicate our membership, will gradually fall into oblivion and will be replaced by another symbol which will be selected by the commonwealth countries themselves.
Mr. Speaker, apart from England of course, Canada is the oldest commonwealth country, and I hope that Canada will be on the ground floor of such an initiative, without, however, exerting any undue pressure on any member of the commonwealth.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the house suggests replacement of the union jack mentioned in the seventh report of the committee by the red ensign.
I for one would not have taken a strong stand in favour of one or the other, but when the decision was taken in the committee and I noticed that the division was so deep that there was danger of having to submit a minority report, I preferred to suport the resolution in favour of the union jack, so that a majority report could be submitted to
[Mr. Lessard (Lake St-John.l

the house. I do not regret my action at all.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the amendment under consideration my stand is as follows, and by this I am not binding any member of our party, since it was agreed at the beginning of the debate that everyone would be free to vote as he wishes. Personally, when the question was put to a vote in the committee, I voted in favour of the report as submitted to the house. I will take the same stand I then took and I will vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), because I definitely intend to support the resolution submitted by the committee.


An hon. Member:: Question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I heard an hon. member say "Question".
According to the information we were given a while ago, no vote will be taken today, due to the absence of several Conservative members who wish to be present in this house when the vote is taken on their amendment.
I did not intend to speak on the seventh report of the flag committee dealing with a second flag, but after listening to the hon. members for Halifax (Mr. Regan) and York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), one suggesting that it is high time that we adopt a commonwealth flag, and the other asking that the French Canadians refrain from voting so as not to antagonize their English speaking fellow citizens, I thought I should make a few remarks.
I would only ask those people to give us the name of any member country in the British commonwealth of nations which, having a distinctive flag, has a second flag to show its allegiance to the crown or to the British commonwealth.
The British commonwealth of nations has no official flag. The union jack is the flag of England and not that of the British commonwealth of nations. Therefore, we cannot consider that flag today as the flag of the British commonwealth of nations. We would have no objection, however, if it were adopted as the flag of the British commonwealth of nations, provided it were so adopted by all member countries of that British community. We would have no objection to that.
But we do object to Canada having two flags. The mistake of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was to place before us a resolution for the adoption of two flags, one to be flown every day of the week, the other

on Sundays. That is what the people do not understand.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Halifax was explaining to us the meaning of the union jack. We know and respect what it means. But we also respect what the red ensign stands for. We respect all it stands for.
But I believe that with our distinctive national flag we can, as Canadians-not as French Canadians or English Canadians, but as Canadians-show our membership in the British commonwealth of nations by using our own symbols.
Nobody in the world, no commonwealth country has adopted a second flag. In the last few years, we have seen small countries get their independence; their first action was to choose a distinctive national flag, but not a second or a third flag-they chose only one flag. And yet these countries have been members of the British commonwealth of nations from the very beginning.
Canadian Commonwealth Flag We have no objection to the nations of this commonwealth meeting and adopting the union jack, if they wish, as the flag of the British commonwealth of nations. Then, 1 would be the first to vote in favour thereof, here in parliament.
Mr. Speaker, may 1 point out that it is six
o'clock.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether hon. members would be agreeable to letting the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) complete his speech tonight, and not see the clock until his speech is concluded.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if we were discussing something really earth shaking like the Canada labour code it might be a worthwhile venture. Otherwise I do not think so.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 17, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I hope hon. members will not object if the national film board completes its project of taking one or two pictures during the next 15 minutes. Hon. members will recall that they gave consent for this educational project on November 27. These pictures are to be used in school classrooms and I am told there will not be much if any interruption.



PRIVILEGE


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege which also affects the entire house. It concerns the memorandum sent by the Prime Minister to the Dorion commission in connection with the answers to questions which I directed to him on November 24. These appear on pages 10428 and 10429 of Hansard for that day, and I read the relevant questions and the Prime Minister's answers:


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in order to clear up what appears to me to be an ambiguity, as I am sure it appears to other hon. members consequent upon some of the answers given to questions today. Was the Prime Minister informed by the Minister of Justice of any of the circumstances of this case, which is now going to be investigated, prior to those circumstances being brought out in this house yesterday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the Minister of Justice has dealt with this matter, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked the question is that it appeared from questions and answers that the Prime Minister had not been informed about his parliamentary secretary. It was not clear whether he had been informed about any of the other circumstances, and my question is this. Was he informed by the Minister of Justice in regard to any of the other circumstances of this case prior to those circumstances being brought to the attention of this house yesterday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was informed by the Minister of Justice of some of the circumstances shortly before his estimates came before the house. He told me this matter would be before the house during the
consideration of his estimates. He told me the facts of the matter. My parliamentary secretary, who has just resigned, has already indicated in his statement that he had not informed me of this matter until this morning.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer touched upon the ambiguity I mentioned, which was the reason for my question. When the Prime Minister said he was informed before the minister's estimates were put before the house, does he mean he was informed yesterday or a week ago? When was he informed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I was informed on the day before his estimates were brought before the house.
-which would be Sunday, November 22. These questions and answers made it clear and definite that the Prime Minister had no knowledge of any of the circumstances-and I emphasize the word "any"-of this case until November 22.
In this morning's Gazette it is announced that yesterday the Prime Minister sent a memorandum which was read into the record of the Dorion commission. As it appears in the Gazette it reads as follows:
Mr. Pearson's memo filed with the inquiry said:
During the evening of November 23 and the morning of November 24, I learned for the first time of the details of the allegations and of the contents of the R.C.M.P. report into the Rivard case.
As I told the house on November 24, I had not known until that day of the alleged involvement of my parliamentary secretary in this matter.
The member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) then asked me whether I was informed and, if so, when, of any of the other circumstances of this case prior to these matters being brought to the attention of the house November 23.
My answer on this point should be clarified. I made it clear that I first learned of the contents of the R.C.M.P. report shortly before the justice estimates were introduced November 23.
However, the Minister of Justice had informed me earlier, on September 2, that there were allegations of bribery involving the executive assistant (Denis) to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: that these allegations were denied by the official in question: that they were being investigated by the R.C.M.P. upon the instructions of the Minister of Justice and with the knowledge, of course, of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; and that the person in question had been sent on leave while the investigation was taking place.
Clearly those were the full and appropriate measures at that stage and they had been taken promptly. I was, therefore, content to wait for

Question of Privilege
the R.C.M.P. report oi which, as I have already stated to the house, I was informed on November 23.
This statement is not, in my mind, a clarification but rather an admission that the information given to the house on November 24 was incorrect. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that had the correct information been given -that the Prime Minister was aware of the charges against Mr. Denis on September 2- I, and no doubt many other members, would have had further questions to ask him, and the whole course of the debate would have taken a quite different direction.
Not only has the house been misinformed and affronted in this way, but it has been further affronted by the Prime Minister not having made his new statement here, as he could have done at any time on a question of privilege rather than sending it in the form of a memorandum to the Dorion commission.
A further question of the Prime Minister's position vis-a-vis the House of Commons arises from the point of how long ago he realized he had made a misstatement to us, and thus how long he continued to leave us in ignorance as to the true facts.
This is a case, Mr. Speaker, which I think you should take under advisement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman has raised a question of privilege which very definitely and directly concerns me; and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will give me an opportunity to deal with it. I appreciate, if I may say so, the terms in which the hon. member raised the question.
Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to deny that I deceived the house in the answer I gave on November 24, either inadvertently or deliberately. When I answered the question on that day as put by the hon. gentleman concerning the circumstances surrounding this matter I was thinking of the circumstances surrounding the production of this report and the contents of this report in respect of members of parliament and others who were mentioned in the report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: The same as the uranium deal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but I am giving the facts of this matter without any reservation or qualification.


An hon. Member:: Cover up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps members opposite would allow me to make my statement on
[Mr. Harkness.l
this very serious matter without snide and smearing observations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: You are pretty thin-skinned over there.


An hon. Member:: Oh, be quiet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I left that afternoon for the west, and when I returned I was informed by the Minister of Justice that I had omitted to add some information which, while not in my mind dealing directly with the question of the report, with when it was received and with the contents of the report, concerned the background of the whole matter. I drafted a memorandum at that time which I had intended to read to the House of Commons when we got on to routine proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, that happens to be the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As hon. gentlemen know, the commission had been set up by the time I got back; the commission had been established and was about to commence its hearings. When the commission commenced its hearings last week and before the house reached motions, when these statements could be made, I realized that perhaps this matter would come up in evidence before the commission and that therefore I should tell the commissioner, as I did when I first met him on December 2 when he was appointed, that there was certain background information about my connection with this matter which should be in his hands. I sent him this memorandum without any request of any kind that it should be made public, but I felt he should have the information: As I said in my letter, I was going to make that information available to the house at the first opportunity.
I was entirely accurate when dealing with the circumstances of the matter in saying that I first heard of the R.C.M.P. report and of any of its contents on November 23. It is true, as I have already said, that the Minister of Justice mentioned to me on September 2, when we were on a plane returning from the Charlottetown conference, that there had been charges of bribery levelled against an official in a minister's office, that those charges had been denied and that the R.C.M.P. were investigating the charges. This seemed to me

the proper course of action to take. I must confess that the matter was then put in the back of my mind pending a report from the minister as to the result of that investigation. It is quite true that when I got on my feet on November 24 I had completely forgotten the earlier conversation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hon. gentlemen may laugh at that, Mr. Speaker, but it was a conversation on board a plane about a matter which was being investigated by a minister and the R.C.M.P., and I was informed that when the investigation had been completed I would be given the results. It is quite true that I did put the matter in the back of my mind from that time, and until November 23 I heard nothing further about it.
On November 24 I gave the house all the information I had-that I thought I had-at that time regarding the circumstances surrounding the production of this report and its contents. I am very sorry indeed, and I apologize to my hon. friend; because if I had had that matter in my mind at the time I would of course have added that information, even though it was relevant only to the original charge to the inquiry that was being made and not to the report of the police which I had not received at that time, or to the content of that report. I apologize for that omission; but believe me, Mr. Speaker, the information I gave was accurate, and I did not deceive the house in that information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, if I might just say another word or two, the Prime Minister says he had forgotten he had been told this; but he has not told us and he has not explained to the house, and I think he has far from satisfied members, why when he remembered it-and he has not told us when he did remember it-he did not then make a clean breast of the whole matter in the House of Commons. Instead of that he said he told the commissioner about these particular facts on December 2 because by that time he knew this was going to come out in evidence.
I think, Mr. Speaker, we are still left in the position where the house has been kept in the dark. It was misinformed to begin with, and then it was kept in the dark ever since until it became apparent that it could not be kept in the dark any longer. I think this is a matter which Your Honour should take under advisement, and consider whether it
Question of Privilege
should go to the committee on privileges and elections.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the suggestion that Your Honour should take this matter under advisement and take any action which you see fit regarding it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: May I ask, is this on the same subject?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to raise this matter on a question of privilege, but in view of the fact that the hon. member for Calgary North was the member whose questions were answered and he was directly affected by the replies, I was quite willing to give way to him. I am now rising on a question of privilege regarding the unsatisfactory nature of the answers we have received.
I think my point of privilege can be dealt with in two parts. The first is that the answers of the Prime Minister are completely unsatisfactory. The questions which were asked on November 24 by the hon. member for Calgary North had nothing to do with whether or not the Prime Minister was aware of the charges contained in the R.C.M.P. report or any of the allegations contained therein. Nor had it anything to do with information regarding the involvement of his parliamentary secretary. Those two questions had been answered the same day but prior to these answers. The three questions which were put in succession by the hon. member for Calgary North, as reported at page 10429 of Hansard, had to do with whether the Prime Minister had been informed "about any of the other circumstances". The answer of the Prime Minister was clear and succinct. First of all he said he had been informed only shortly before the justice estimates came before the house. His second reply was:
-I think I was informed on the day before his estimates were brought before the house.
In view of the statement of the Prime Minister to the effect that when he gave that reply he had forgotten that on September 2 these matters had been revealed to him, it would seem to me that if on November 22, the day before the estimates were brought to the house, the Minister of Justice had informed the Prime Minister that he had the R.C.M.P. report in his possession and that it contained serious allegations regarding certain persons, surely that would have refreshed his memory about the conversation which had

Question of Privilege
taken place on September 2. Therefore I find it extremely difficult to understand how the Prime Minister on November 24 could make the categorical assertion that he knew nothing about any of the other circumstances regarding the Rivard case until the day before the estimates were introduced in the house.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this is completely at variance with the statement filed by the Prime Minister with Chief Justice Dorion. This statement is attached to a letter which, if I may quote in part, says:
I had hoped that before now I would have been able to make a short statement on this aspect of the matter to the House of Commons, but the procedural situation made that impossible.
I hope that very shortly the procedural difficulties will be removed, but meanwhile I am attaching to this letter a copy of what I had hoped to say before now, as I think you may wish to have it before the inquiry opens tomorrow.
Yours sincerely,
L. B. Pearson.
The memorandum which is attached is dated December 14 and is entitled "Statement by the Prime Minister". It is in the following terms:
This is my first opportunity to report to the house on the judicial inquiry which, as I mentioned three weeks ago on November 24, would investigate allegations that had been made concerning possible bribery and improper pressures in relation to the extradition case involving one Lucien Rivard.
The relevant paragraphs, Mr. Speaker, are these:
The member for Calgary North then asked me whether I was informed and, if so, when, of any of the other circumstances of this case prior to these matters being brought to the attention of the house on November 23.
My answer on this point should be clarified. I made it clear that I first learned of the contents of the R.C.M.P. report shortly before the justice estimates were introduced on November 23. However, the Minister of Justice had informed me earlier, on September 2, that there were allegations of bribery involving the executive assistant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; that these allegations were denied by the official in question; that they were being investigated by the R.C.M.P. upon the instructions of the Minister of Justice, and with the knowledge, of course, of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; and that the person in question had been sent on leave while the investigation was taking place.
My first point, Mr. Speaker, is that if the statement which the Prime Minister filed with Chief Justice Dorion is correct, then the statements made by him on November 24 as reported at page 10429 of Hansard are incorrect, and the house was consequently mis-

led by the Prime Minister regarding the statements he made at that time.
My second point of privilege is that the Prime Minister has had over three weeks in which to refresh his memory and make a correction in the House of Commons. It is not correct, as he says in his letter to the chief justice, that the procedural situation made that impossible or that there were procedural difficulties which he hoped would be removed. Mr. Speaker, there were no procedural difficulties, because any member at any time can rise in his place on a question of privilege. As a matter of fact, during the past two weeks several members at various times have risen on questions of privilege. There was nothing to prevent the Prime Minister from correcting this matter and correcting his statements of November 24. If he found that his memory had been defective with respect to the replies he made to the hon. member for Calgary North he could at any time after his return from his trip west have risen in his place and told the house that he had been in error, and set the matter right.
We take a very serious view of the fact that the Prime Minister made no such statement in the house, and for a period of over three weeks made no attempt whatsoever to correct what was obviously a misstatement of fact. Instead, the Prime Minister sent a statement to the chief justice, which he said he hoped to make in the house when the procedural difficulties were removed. It is only today, when a question of privilege has been raised, that the Prime Minister has seen fit to make an explanation to the effect that his memory had failed him when he was replying to the questions asked by the hon. member for Calgary North.
Therefore I think the members of this party cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary North that this be referred to Your Honour. With all due deference, sir, I feel that this matter must be referred to the house and to the proper committee appointed by the house for that purpose. This is a matter which the house must determine. If the house feels, as I do, that it was misled by the Prime Minister in answers which he gave on November 24 to the hon. member for Calgary North, the house must determine that and the house must say so. If on the other hand the house is satisfied with the explanation which the Prime Minister has given or by any further elaboration which he may care to make to the committee on privileges and elections, then at that time the house can make a determination as to whether or not

the house was misled by the Prime Minister, and decide if that was due to either an unwitting or an intentional action on the part of the Prime Minister.
I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher):
That the statements made In the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on November 24, 1964, concerning his knowledge of the matters referred to in order in council PC. 1964-1819, as amended by order in council P.C. 1964-1820, be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for consideration in the light of statements made by the Prime Minister in his letter of December 14, 1964, to the commissioner appointed under the terms of the said order in council and in the statement enclosed with the said letter.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Before accepting the motion, Mr. Speaker, you must first of all determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. If you do accept the argument that there is a prima facie case of privilege, then of course the substantive motion which has been made is in order. In so far as we in this party are concerned, we believe that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary North is a good one, that is that you take this matter under advisement.
If, in your determination, you are able to satisfy yourself that there is a prima facie case of privilege, then of course you can allow the motion that has been moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. It appears to us at this stage that there is a prima facie case of privilege. We believe the house will determine this matter eventually, but that it ought to go to a committee so we can have the facts all assembled.
We know this whole matter is now under investigation by a judicial inquiry set up by the government, known as the Dorion commission. I believe the determination of whether or not the house has been misled can be brought out by cross checking the evidence that will come out in this judicial inquiry against the dates and the statements that have been made in this house. Then the committee will be able to decide whether there has been a misstatement of the facts in this house or whether there has been an honest lack of memory.
So far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we would support the suggestion that this matter be referred to a standing committee of the house, and I believe the Prime Minister has already accepted this procedure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is a motion before the house now, and perhaps I can say a word about it. As I understand the rules, if any
Question of Privilege
member of this house makes a charge that a member of this house has deliberately deceived the house, that is a matter which must be investigated and the hon. member making the charge takes the responsibility for asking for the investigation before a committee. If a charge is made it must be investigated, and the hon. member making the charge takes the responsibility for that. Under the circumstances now, I do not know whether the hon. member is making such a charge. It must be a charge that I deliberately deceived this house. If that is the charge it certainly should be investigated.
The hon. member has said two other things. He said that two or three weeks ago I should have made the kind of statement I have now made as a question of privilege. The hon. member obviously does not give much credence to my statement that I believed the right way to do this was not as a question of privilege, which if I had raised it would have been tantamount to admitting that I had deceived the house, but by making a statement on motions which could be replied to by hon. members of the house. This is what I intended to do at the first opportunity, notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman has said.
Another point the hon. gentleman made was that I discussed the matter with the Minister of Justice on the morning of November 24 and he must have informed me of the earlier talks. He does not accept my word when I say I was not informed by him of any of the antecedents of this matter. He does not have to accept my word, but I repeat that is the truth, absolutely.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I cannot allow the Prime Minister to put words into my mouth. What I said was that when the Minister of Justice, according to the Prime Minister's own statement, informed him on November 22, the day before the estimates were brought into the house, that he had in his possession a report from the R.C.M.P. alleging certain wrongdoing on the part of certain persons, surely that must have refreshed the Prime Minister's memory that he had discussed this matter with the Minister of Justice on September 2. It is therefore difficult to understand why on November 24 he could not remember this previous conversation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member may find it difficult to understand, but I am telling him the facts. When the Minister of Justice spoke to me, it was to the effect that a report had been received, and what it contained. I had

Question of Privilege
no thought of the earlier discussion at all. He can accept that statement or not, but I am making it as a statement which is true. I would remind the hon. member that, as I said in my first statement, this was a conversation on an airplane coming back from a constitutional conference, the kind of statement which could easily be put in the back of a prime minister's mind when he had other things in his mind during that week, and especially when it was a matter that was now in the hands of the minister and the R.C.M.P. I was informed I would be given the results of the investigation when the minister felt they were complete. This is the story, and it is the absolute and complete truth.
I might have made an error in not getting up on a question of privilege, but I thought it would be better to make a statement under motions. I apologize if that error was made. If the hon. member wishes to charge me with deceiving the house deliberately, he should do so and certainly the matter should go to a committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to decide whether there is a question of privilege. Dealing first with the argument of the hon. member for Calgary North, I should like to cite Beauchesne, citation 104, subsection (2), which reads:
It has often been laid down that the Speaker's function in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege does not extend to deciding the question of substance whether a breach of privilege has in fact been committed-a question which can only be decided by the house itself.
It seems to me, therefore, that it is not part of my function, as was suggested, to take all this into consideration, and I do not propose to do so. Furthermore, the hon. member did not finish up with a motion either to refer this to a committee or asking for some penalty, and without some specific motion it seems to me it was a general statement and not necessarily a question of privilege. Then we had a long explanation from the right hon. Prime Minister, and up to that stage it seems to me it was more in the nature of a grievance than a question of privilege. Then the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam rose and moved the motion which I have before me.
In that connection I should like to call to the attention of the house a ruling by Mr. Speaker Michener which is very much in point. The ruling appears in the Journals of the House of Commons of June 17, 1959 and I referred to it in the house on October 30, 1964. I do not propose to read the whole ruling but just to cite one key sentence. These are the words of Speaker Michener:

In my view, simple justice requires that no honourable member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the house or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
On reading and studying the motion moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam it seems to me there is no specific charge set out in it. The words are too vague. If the hon. member wishes to make a specific charge there is a proper way to do it, to stand and bring a specific charge.
Here we are dealing with a misstatement, not a question of privilege. There must be a real accusation made against, in this case, the right hon. Prime Minister, and there must be something in the charge which shows the misstatement, if it was a misstatement, was made with intent, with purpose. There is no specific charge, and in view of the ruling of Speaker Michener and of what I have said, in my opinion there is not a prima facie case and therefore no question of privilege.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the ruling you have given misses the entire point of the motion which I placed before Your Honour and the house, namely that two statements are now before the house, one a series of answers made by the Prime Minister to questions on November 24, and the other the memorandum sent by the Prime Minister to Chief Justice Dorion, and that they are completely at variance.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may not like the ruling, but the ruling has been made in the best possible faith. I repeat once more there is nothing to prevent the hon. member bringing a charge, properly drafted, but in my opinion this is not properly drafted. There is no specific charge, and until there is I cannot accept it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, believing that the house and the house only has the right to make a decision on this matter, I would therefore regretfully appeal your ruling.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is proper to say anything at this time. I do not want to, but I feel a very serious situation has arisen and I am sure the Prime Minister would be most anxious to have this sent to a committee.
There are the two divergent statements. I recognize that one can forget-fail to remember-as a prime minister carrying all the information that a prime minister does, but surely he would want the committee to

look into this question that he should have forgotten a matter so important as this. I make that appeal to him, that he accept the suggestion and not rely on the question of charge or counter-charge.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is in your hands. You have made a ruling, and I believe it has been appealed.


Mr. Speaker:: That is exactly what I was going to say to the house, that a decision of the Chair has been given. The decision has been appealed.
The house has heard the decision of the Chair, from which the hon. member has appealed to the house. All those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the house from a ruling of the Chair which is as follows:
"The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) as a question of privilege proposed to move that the statements made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on November 24, 1964, concerning his knowledge of the matters referred to in order in council P.C. 1964"-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair decided that in the absence of a specific charge in the wording of the proposed motion he could not find the basis of a prima facie case of privilege.
Whereupon the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: tained.	I declare the decision sus-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I was paired
with the Minister of National Defence (Mr.	
Hellyer). Had I	voted I would have voted
against sustaining your ruling.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired
with the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr.	
Wahn). Had I	voted I would have voted
against sustaining your ruling.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I was paired too, but I forgot about it.	
	PENSIONS
SECOND REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE	
ON	CANADA PLAN


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I have	the honour to present the
second report of	the special joint committee
of the Senate and the House of Commons .on the Canada pension plan, in English and	

in French. By unanimous consent I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: that the second report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Canada pension plan presented this day be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent for the Chair to put this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the seventh and final report of the special committee on a Canadian flag, presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Flemming (Vic-toria-Carleton).
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned yesterday at six o'clock I was saying that we, in this corner of the house, have or would have no objection to the seventh report of the flag committee being considered again so as to suggest to the government to propose the union jack as the commonwealth flag to all member countries of the British commonwealth of nations.
Several members mentioned yesterday that the Canadian parliament could adopt this flag, since Canada is a member of the British empire or of the British commonwealth of nations.
Now, that flag is not recognized at all as the flag of the empire or of the British commonwealth of nations, but rather as the flag of a country, namely England.
I wish to repeat that we hold nothing against the traditions represented by the union jack or the red ensign. We have nothing against what either of these two flags represent, far from it. On the other hand, the people of Canada wonder why our country

should have two flags. Ours will be the only country in the world, in similar circumstances, to have two flags; a Canadian national flag and another to prove its membership in the commonwealth of nations.
Mr. Speaker, surely we need no flag other than our own Canadian flag to indicate our co-operation with the other members of the British empire. We would have no objection either should any province decide to adopt the red ensign as its provincial flag, if it wishes to do so. We would have no objection to that, but Quebec does have a provincial flag, and it is not trying and never tried to impose it on the federal parliament or any of the other Canadian provinces. We would not attempt either to impose to anybody our provincial flag which symbolizes our origins and our traditions which are essentially Canadian, because everybody knows that Canada was first discovered in 1534 by Jacques Cartier. Therefore, at that time our allegiance was to France. But today we would not impose or try to impose French symbols on the Canadian people as a whole.
We have seen other provinces besides Quebec adopt a provincial flag. For instance, British Columbia and Nova Scotia adopted a provincial flag, and Saskatchewan adopted one yesterday. If Alberta decided to adopt a flag similar to the red ensign or the union jack, we would have the greatest respect for such a decision.
Unfortunately, such is not the case: Attempts are made to force a second Canadian flag on us. And we are sorry to say that this project of the Prime Minister or of the government to adopt a second flag for Canada is bringing about unfortunate reactions in certain parts of Canada.
Reading in the press yesterday and this morning that hon. members from Ontario and other provinces were threatened because they voted for a distinctive national flag, we wonder what has become of our truly Canadian civilization, what has become of that civilization we wish to set as an example for several nations in the world, when things get to the point where hon. members are threatened because they vote for a true Canadian symbol.
Mr. Speaker, we deeply regret the doings of these people who make threats against hon. members, be it against members of the Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic, Social Credit or Ralliement Creditiste parties. I think the Canadian people have reached such a degree of maturity that our country,
Canadian Commonwealth Flag Canada, can be held up as an example to other countries, and even to certain countries which are members of the British commonwealth of nations at this time.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the Conservatives and included in the second part of the resolution, to the effect of changing the union jack for the red ensign, faces us with a choice, to use the words of some hon. members.
Now, we of the Ralliement Creditiste have said loud and clear, not only in the province of Quebec but also in Ontario, and I even said so in western Canada, that we would support the adoption of a distinctive national flag, but not two Canadian flags. That statement met with the approval of English speaking and French speaking people as well, and today the Conservative amendment does not imply a choice to the effect of changing the union jack for the red ensign.
Let me tell you how we will vote on this amendment and on the main motion. We have the greatest respect for what the union jack and the red ensign represent, but we still stick to the ideas set forth several months ago to the effect that Canada must have one flag and not two flags, and that it can belong to the British commonwealth of nations with its distinctive Canadian flag and nothing else.
Mr. Speaker, the proposal for the adoption of the red ensign forces us to make a choice, and the stand we have taken is evident. We are in favour of one flag and against any plan for the adoption of a second flag. The Conservatives would like to give us the red ensign as a second flag and the Liberals want to give us the union jack as a flag indicating our allegiance to the crown and our membership in the British commonwealth of nations.
Mr. Speaker, we agree neither to the amendment of the Conservatives, nor to the main motion, and we will be against any plan and any amendment or subamendment which would force upon us a second flag, whatever it may be.
We want to remain authentic Canadians from coast to coast and I think that England and all other countries of the British commonwealth of nations will respect us even more if we appear before them with a Canadian symbol representing Canada in this British commonwealth of nations.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to make on the amendment now before us as well as on the main motion that we will probably discuss this afternoon.

Canadian Commonwealth Flag
Out stand is clear and I will sum it up this way.
The distinctive national flag is adopted. We have voted for that flag not because we had something against one or the other, but because we have voted as real Canadians, not as French Canadians.
We shall vote against the Conservative amendment and against the main motion.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to speak in support of the amendment now before the house. I recall very well that during the 33 days of discussion on the important matter of the flag more than one member of this house asked all members to exercise self discipline, not to be repetitive and not to repeat arguments that had already been made. I must have taken that request to heart, Mr. Speaker, because this is the first time I have risen to speak to the flag motions.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Harold Edward Winch: One hon. member says
"Shame". Sir, my position was known to all the members of this House of Commons; my position, I believe, was known to the people of Canada because of the symbolic gesture which I made to indicate that no flag should be raised on parliament hill that was not the flag of Canada since it had not been approved by the House of Commons. My position being known to all the members and all the people of Canada, and some 270 speeches having been made, what more was required to be said on either side of the question? When I had the opportunity of expressing my hope, I voted for the red ensign as the distinctive flag of Canada. When that motion was defeated, we then had to face the vote on the recommendation of the special committee of the House of Commons, a special committee representative of all parties, and having lost what I really wanted, then as a democratic member of a democratic House of Commons I accepted the majority democratic position of all parties in this House of Commons and voted for the new flag. I make no apologies for that.
Now, sir, we have a further question in front of us, and that is what you may call a second flag, a flag introduced on the basis of the fact that, in addition to a national flag, we should have one that will demonstrate the relationship of Canada within the commonwealth, as a part of the commonwealth and of our allegiance to the peoples and countries that were the founders of our country.

I disagree completely with the recommendation of the committee. I cannot understand how the committee reached their conclusion. It is to be a flag that demonstrates our relationship with the commonwealth. How you demonstrate your relationship with the commonwealth by a flag which is wholly and solely outside of Canada, I cannot understand.
The amendment is reasonable; the amendment is understandable. The amendment is the only position that the members of the House of Commons can take in support of the committee if they want a second flag which demonstrates Canada's position within the commonwealth. This flag is, should be, and must be the red ensign. This morning I made once again a special study of the facts to insure that my information was correct, and I think it is.
Let us take the union jack, strictly as the union jack, and we find that is not a flag which demonstrates the relationship between Canada and the commonwealth. It is the flag of the United Kingdom. However, I should like to put this to the members: Take the red ensign, and what is it? It is a combination of the union jack and the Canadian shield. Why is it, sir, that no matter what constituency or province one comes from, there are so many in this house who ignore the Canadian shield. We have the union jack on the red ensign. We have the union jack which we, in Canada, share with other commonwealth countries in what is sometimes termed the staff side of the flag or the jack side of the flag or, if you want to be particular, the canton No. 1. So, on the staff side, the jack side, the canton No. 1, is the union jack, which represents not only the United Kingdom but the commonwealth because it is common to all the commonwealth countries. On the red ensign also, Mr. Speaker, you have the Canadian shield.
Now, sir, a few weeks ago this was explained in heraldic terminology. I am afraid too many have forgotten the heraldic terminology of the Canadian shield. On the red ensign, the Canadian shield is symbolic of Canada. This shield has maple leaves on it, which everyone agrees are symbolic of Canada. It also has emblems that go back to ancient times, ancient times of the peoples and countries who have founded and built this country. You have the couchant lion or, if the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) were here, he would refer to it as the heraldic leopard. We know that it came over from France and was the emblem on the flag of

William of Normandy. Ever since, from 1066, it has been incorporated in the heraldry of Great Britain and of the British kings. On the shield of Canada you have the red lion rampant on a golden field, which was the emblem of the Scottish kings and came to Scotland from ancient Ireland. Then, you have the harp, an emblem on our Canadian shield which is equally ancient and was taken into Ireland many centuries ago. You have the fleur-de-lis on the Canadian shield, which is well known as the lily of France and held a proud place in the arms of British kings proclaiming the French ancestry of the sovereigns from, to put it politely, the distaff side of the house. About the time the fleur-de-lis was removed from the royal arms of the United Kingdom it began to appear in the heraldry of Canada and it has been there ever since.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these emblems on the Canadian shield represent the early pioneers who were instrumental in laying the foundation of our country, Canada. We must remember that the emblems on the Canadian shield, with all their heraldic meaning and early history, were incorporated officially in 1921 because the Canadian government requested King George V to prepare a new coat of arms for Canada. It was in response to the request of Canada in 1921 that the royal college of heralds laid down what we now know as the coat of arms or the shield of Canada.
In view of all the foregoing, in view of the fact that the House of Commons has established what is termed a national, distinctive flag, I say it seems only suitable that the second flag which demonstrates our understanding of the past, recognizes the ethnic groups that founded Canada, demonstrates our history of the past, our allegiance to the past, our recognition of the pioneers who came from many countries and made Canada great, our recognition of our membership in the commonwealth, should be one on which you have the union jack on the staff and the coat of arms on the fly. On that one flag we have Canada with its history and origins, and with its membership in the commonwealth of nations.
Sir, how can anyone argue against the red ensign in such a matter? How can anyone say, with our understanding of the commonwealth, that the second flag shall be the flag of a country outside Canada? The real living proof of our membership in the commonwealth and the real living proof of our knowledge of history and ancestry demand
Division
that we have both together on the flag of the commonwealth, the shield of Canada and the flag of the mother country, with tribute to the pioneers who founded our country. It is as simple as that. I have nothing to say against the union jack, but having made a decision the other night on a distinctive national flag I say our second flag should be the red ensign, which is the proof of our history and our pride within the commonwealth, tTranslation]


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to make a few short remarks.
We will soon be asked to substitute the red ensign for the union jack as a second flag for Canada. I believe, like most of my constituents and a great majority of the Canadian people, that one flag is sufficient to represent Canada.
Whatever the outcome of this vote, whether the red ensign or the union jack is chosen as the second flag, I intend to vote against both, when the vote is taken on the main motion.
Since my constituents and myself are not interested in the vote which will be taken, I will abstain from voting when we will be called upon to choose between the red ensign and the union jack, and, as I said, I shall vote against both when the main motion comes up.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: lost.
Rondeau
Rouleau
Roxburgh
Ryan
Sauve
Stewart
Tardif
Teillet
Temple
Tremblay
Tucker
Turner
Walker
Watson (Chdteauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Whelan-130.
I declare the amendment


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Messrs:
Addison
Armstrong
Asselin (Norte Dame de Grace)
Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe)
Badanai
Basford
Batten
Beaule
Bechard
Belanger
Benidickson
Benson
Berger
Blouin
Boulanger
Boutin
Brown
Byrne
Cadieux (Terrebonne)
Cameron (High Park)
Cantin
Caouette
Cardin
Carter
Cashin
Chapdelaine
Choquette
Chretien
Cot6 (Chicoutimi)
C6te (Longueuil)
Crossman
Cyr
Davis
Deachman
Deschatelets
Dionne
Drury
Dube
Dupuis
femard
Eudes
Favreau
Forest
Francis
Frenette
Gauthier
Gelber
Gendron
Godin
Gordon
Granger
Gray
Greene
Gregoire
Groos
Guay
Hahn
Haidasz
Harley
Hays
Honey
Jewett, Miss
Kelly
Klein
Konantz, Mrs.
Lachance
Laing
LaMarsh, Miss
Lamontagne
Lamoureux
Langlois
Laniel
Latulippe
Laverdiere
Leblanc
Leduc
Legault
Lessard (Lake St. John)
Lessard (St. Henry)
Lloyd
Loiselle
Macaluso
MacEachen
Mackasey
MacNaught
Mcllraith
McLean (Charlotte)
McMillan
McWilliam
Marcoux
Matheson
Matte
Mitchell
Moreau
Morison
Mullally
Munro
Nicholson
Hellyer). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Beer:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


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


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong unduly this debate on the seventh report of the flag committee.
Inasmuch as we voted only a few days ago to select a flag, I fail to see the importance of giving Canada a second flag as a symbol of our allegiance to the crown and our membership in the commonwealth.
Canada was without a flag for 97 years. But today we are offered two flags. Now, there are some who claim that we are not going to have two. Why then should there be two resolutions asking us to adopt two flags.
Mr. Speaker, if in 1931, when Canada gained its independence under the Statute of Westminster, our country had been given a distinctive flag, we would not be faced today with this thorny problem. Why did the politicians of those days not give Canada a flag? It is up to you to answer.
Mr. Speaker, last November I was privileged to participate in the 10th conference of the commonwealth parliamentary association in Jamaica. What I appreciated about that country is the fact that, in 1962, when it obtained its independence, it immediately flew its distinctive flag, and sang its distinctive national anthem. During that commonwealth conference I did not hear "God save the Queen" sung once, and the union jack was
[Mr. Girouard.l

not in a more prominent place than other national flags.
Mr. Speaker, why should we have two flags while all other countries, such as the United States, France and the U.S.S.R. only have one flag? Why should we act differently?
Why do we have to ask permission or to pass an act in order to fly a foreign flag? If I want to hoist the stars and stripes on the fourth of July, the United States' national day, I have no permission to ask of anyone, any more than if I want to fly the UN flag on United Nations' day.
Canada did not pass an act to recognize the United Nations flag and permit Canadians to fly it. The UN flag was adopted by representatives of the United Nations member countries.
In the seventh report now before us, we are asked to adopt the union jack as the symbol of our allegiance to the crown and of our membership in the British commonwealth of nations.
Why the union jack? It is the flag of Great Britain and we would be lacking in courtesy and tact if we took it over without the permission of Great Britain. It does not belong to Canada to decide what flag to fly to indicate its association with the British commonwealth of nations. In fact, our membership in the commonwealth would not be shown by the adoption of the union jack, because that flag is not the commonwealth's but Great Britain's, and even if it were the commonwealth's flag, we do not need a law to fly it. We just fly it.
To indicate our membership in the commonwealth, a commonwealth flag would be needed, and in that regard the member countries of the commonwealth should decide what flag they will adopt as a symbol of that commonwealth. And thus, all the member countries will be proud of it, because a symbol will have been chosen not by one country but by all member countries.
Mr. Speaker, why has the government brought forward two resolutions? We Canadians wanted a resolution for the selection of a single distinctive flag; that is all. Why try to make us believe that only one flag is involved? Why this seventh report, then? Why do we have to vote on this second flag?
We have often heard during the flag debate that many Canadians fought under the union jack or the red ensign. It is quite proper to recall such memories. There is a tendency here, in this house, to speak about veterans in and out of season, and even to use them for 20220-713
Canadian Commonwealth Flag political purposes; but when the time comes to help them, there is not quite that display of courage to face up to their problems, yet many of them are in urgent need of assistance, particularly war amputees and widows whose husbands were killed on the battlefield. It might be better not to mention them at every occasion but pay them more attention and provide them with what they need to face their obligations in life, in short, to provide them with the strict minimum.
Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of a distinctive flag and we have proved it recently by voting solidly for the maple leaf. But we do object to adopting a symbol, in this case the union jack, to show our membership in the commonwealth and our allegiance to the British crown. We cannot concur in this report because it is not up to Canada to decide what should be the symbol of the commonwealth. Why should we, Canadians, legislate in an area involving 18 other countries? This would be a lack of tact and courtesy on our part.
How can a compromise or a solution be reached in this house when five members of the committee abstained from voting, and, consequently, only ten out of a total of 15 members voted. Under these circumstances, and since the decision to fly a flag as a symbol of membership in the commonwealth of nations lies with all member countries, I move:
-That the seventh report of the special committee on a Canadian flag be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to suggest to the Prime Minister that he should propose the recognition of a flag of the commonwealth of free nations at the next meeting of the prime ministers of the countries comprising the membership of such a commonwealth.
If democratic principles are to be respected, once the different views have been expressed on the matter, let the motion be voted upon, and the result of this vote be respected.
Mr. Speaker, once the debate has come to an end I am sure the Canadian people will remain true to all that has made our nation great. Whether we fly the maple leaf, the union jack or any other flag as a symbol of our allegiance to the crown, we shall nevertheless continue to respect all that has been dear to Canada. And I would not like to see us spurn a past which has given us our freedom. If we are mature people, let us stop our divisions, let us not tear one another to pieces any more; let us endeavour to make Canada a great country to live in.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this amendment
appears to be somewhat in the nature of an

Canadian Commonwealth Flag expanded negative. Having expressed this doubt, I must say it is not an open and shut case and I feel it my duty to submit it to the house for decision.

The hon. member for Quebec East, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix, moves:
That the seventh report of the special committee on a Canadian flag be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to suggest to the Prime Minister that he should propose the recognition of a flag of the commonwealth of free nations at the next meeting of the prime ministers of the countries comprising the membership of such a commonwealth.
And that the committee for such purposes be revived.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the amendment and against the recommendation of the seventh report of the special flag committee, and, for several reasons, all of which I shall not put forward because I intend to be brief, very brief.
At the outset I wish to congratulate the government for having had the courage to bring the flag matter before this house and to hold out against the pressures exerted on them to have the matter postponed.
I suppose that the fact they knew they had the support of our group, the Ralliement Creditiste, helped in giving them that courage which resulted in giving our country, Canada, a distinctive national flag.
Unfortunately, things were too good to last, because today we of the Ralliement Creditiste must withdraw our support, and for the same reasons we had to give them support when they proposed a distinctive national flag.
Today we are asked to give official recognition to the emblem of another country. I think it is a mistake which destroys the good impression made by the government because of the adoption of a new flag.
I think I would be justified to turn against the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) the charges he made against us, as can be seen on page 11237 of Hansard, concerning the position that our members adopted in the house on the flag issue. He said that our conduct was dictated by political interest.
As far as I am concerned, I can see no reasons other than electoral which have prompted the government to introduce this motion for a second flag. It seems that after


having succeeded with its project of a distinctive flag, it feels it may have caused dissatisfaction among a certain group, and this second flag is to satisfy them. That is why I am forced to oppose this second flag as earnestly as I had supported the first one.
In fact, I think the best way to explain our opposition to a second flag would be to ask why a country needs a flag. A flag is an emblem representing the nation; it helps us to love our country and to make it known.
The flag must be a national focus and the emblem around which all citizens are proud to gather. Therefore, we should not have two official flags; the flag should not, moreover, bring back to an important group of citizens memories which they prefer to consign to oblivion.
We applauded when the government introduced the motion for a distinctive flag which, even though it is not very representative, has at least the essential quality of not including in its design reminders of bondage, of colonialism, or of a conquering nation. I fail to see why the government should ask us now to approve a second flag which, in our opinion, expresses precisely all these things.
During the previous debates the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and several of his members blamed us for trying to break with the past and refusing to recognize the great bounties England brought to Canada.
Besides having a bad influence on the relations among Canadians, this action is futile, not to say childish, because we never passed any resolution to recognize the flag of the United Nations, and yet it is flown when required by circumstances, and the same applies also to all foreign flags.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member, because it is now five o'clock.

It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to a consideration of private members' business.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with the leaders of the other groups in the house, and I believe it is agreeable to all hon. members that we waive the private members' hour today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: The new distinctive flag means harmony and peace among the ethnic groups of this country, but this second flag will mean discord and disunity. Once more, let us not forget that if Great Britain gave this country many good things, it also gave us, French Canadians, things which we would rather forget, and we would prefer looking toward the future of Canada.
If we recognize officially a second flag under certain circumstances-which are not mentioned-we will afford certain groups, which I will not name, a valid reason for flying the second flag more often than the first one.
We are told that this second flag will denote our membership in the commonwealth of nations. Then, why use the British flag for that purpose? That flag is not recognized by all the countries of the commonwealth. Therefore, why and under what authority should we impose it upon the commonwealth nations who do not want it? Why should we carry our dispute concerning a flag to the meetings of the commonwealth of nations?
It is also claimed that this second flag will show our loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. We have never had any such flag since the conquest, but none the less French Canadians have proved themselves quite respectful and loyal subjects from the conquest to this day.
We shall recognize and respect our Queen, as long as the province of Quebec does not choose freely and without compulsion to become an independent state like Ghana, for instance. But let us not give weight to the present separatists tendency by forcing upon its supporters obligations which they are now carrying out freely.
To impose such coercion would give them arguments that they could make the most of for their own purposes. I am against separatism in Quebec and I shall be against it as long as I can keep the hope that Quebec will be able to assert its rights in this house.
During the flag debate we had clear evidence that the interests of Quebec will never be well safeguarded by the two old parties, because we saw the Conservative party go to pieces and its Quebec members break with the group and vote against it. On the other hand, on the occasion of the adoption of a second flag, we see Quebec members of the Liberal party voting against their own opinions in order to return the courtesy that they received from their colleagues of the other provinces. That is why this flag debate has 20220-713i
Canadian Commonwealth Flag convinced me of one thing, and it is that if we want to keep Quebec in confederation it is an urgent necessity for all Quebec members who are conscious of their responsibilities and who really want to protect Quebec's rights and stand for them within confederation, to unite and form a Quebec party in Ottawa. That would be the only way to show that Quebec is not like the other provinces and deserves a treatment different from the treatment it got in the past.
You will find further evidence of what I am saying in the perfect unity which prevailed and still prevails in our party on racial matters like the one now before us. It was very easy for our group to remain united because we are all of the same origin. I think that Quebec and also confederation would be better off if we had in this house a Quebec party strong and united.
In concluding my remarks I ask all Quebec members in this house, whatever their political party, to unite with us so as to prevent the passing of this resolution for the creation of a second official flag. As regards the other members, I say this: You have everything to gain if you do not permit this factor of dissension, the adoption of a second flag, to come between you and the Quebec representatives.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, if at this time I take this opportunity to address the House of Commons, it is mainly because I am convinced that we are now discussing an extremely important subject, a most important principle for our country.
I sincerely hope that we will really have a free vote soon.
I will state immediately that I give my unqualified support to the amendment moved by the Creditistes. Indirectly, perhaps it will not be in agreement with the first remarks I wish to make, but I will state that, at this time, I am very proud of the fact that we now have a distinctive national flag.
If we must have a flag for the commonwealth, I wonder why we should not also have a distinctive flag as a symbol of our agreement with the commonwealth.

Very briefly, sir, in rising to support this amendment responsibly put forward by the Creditiste party at this late hour, I am only doing so because I sincerely feel in my heart of hearts we are dealing with a most important principle. I am proud to say that at this moment Canada, certainly by a vote of

Canadian Commonwealth Flag this house, has a distinctive national flag. If we have a distinctive national flag, then I ask myself, why should we not have a distinctive commonwealth flag? I know that, directly or indirectly, we cannot talk about votes that have been taken. However, when I voted a few minutes ago for the red ensign as our commonwealth flag, I did all in my power to make sure that if we had a commonwealth flag it would be distinctive. I did all in my power to assure that we would minimize the chance of this whole consideration being taken by the country as a two flag resolution. It is for this reason I rise at this moment.
Most of the technicalities advanced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in his argument are correct, as I said during the debate on the amendment. While I do not agree with all the technicalities presented by the Prime Minister in relation to the flag of England or the royal standard, he knows as well as I do that, while the royal union flag is greatly respected in many corners of this country, it is greatly respected as the national flag of one of our great allies, Great Britain. I say that if hon. members opposite were really forthright, were going to vote in a free vote, they would advise the Prime Minister that there is going to be confusion on this issue in the province of Quebec. I do not like continually to make references to the province of Quebec, but surely the members of the Quebec caucus of the government party have explained to the leadership of their party that in many parts of Quebec this is going to confuse the issue. If this is truly not a political proposition, can members opposite not accept this fact? Do hon. members opposite not realize that by rushing a vote on the union jack at this late hour, they are going to maximize the possibility, certainly in my constituency, of this whole issue being considered as a two flag resolution?
I ask hon. members opposite, do they not agree with the responsible utterances of members of the Creditiste party and with our attitude at the moment, to the effect that no matter what technical explanation you make you cannot explain the technicalities from the Atlantic to the Pacific on an emotionally charged issue such as the flag? Hon. members know in their heart of hearts that in many parts of the country, not only in Quebec, the union jack is considered to be the flag of England? Why rush into this matter?


An hon. Member:: The flag of the United Kingdom.


William Heward Grafftey: The flag of the United Kingdom; excuse me, I have made a technical error myself. Hon. members sit opposite and shout, "Carried". Surely they can see the sincerity with which I am speaking. Surely many members, not only those from Quebec but from other provinces, must agree with me at this moment. This is going to create much unnecessary confusion. Do you think for one minute, gentlemen, that I am rising to my feet at this late hour, after the flag debate has dragged on for such a long time, just to say something in which I do not believe? I believe this sincerely.
I know I have often been partisan. There have been speeches in this House of Commons on occasion when we have regretted a few of the things we have said. I have often said the Liberal party has said one thing in Quebec and another thing outside of Quebec, and that by proposing this type of resolution, by forcing us at the end of a long, long session to rush into this kind of vote, they are only asking the people to emphasize the fact that they have said one thing in Quebec and another thing in the rest of Canada. Surely the members of the Quebec caucus must know that if they believe in all sincerity that national unity is a really important thing, they are going to support the Creditiste amendment to minimize the chance of confusion. Hon. members opposite from Quebec look across at me and smile. I know that in their heart of hearts they realize their electors have told them that so far as they are concerned the union jack is the distinctive flag of the United Kingdom. But the same cannot be said of the red ensign or any other kind of flag. However, the vote on the red ensign has been taken and it was defeated.
Speaking as a public man I know that in my own constituency sometimes we have done a bad job explaining to the electors the real significance of our commonwealth ties. This is true in the province of Quebec. Sometimes we have done a bad job explaining the significance of the presence of the crown in Canada, but why confuse things and make it harder to explain this important issue by rushing into this kind of vote?
Maybe I sound partisan now but I must say this. During a past debate hon. members opposite said to me, "You don't dare vote against a distinctive flag." For a totally different reason, during this debate hon. members opposite have said to me "You don't dare vote against the union jack as our

commonwealth symbol." That is political stuff. That is partisan. I am not going into the details of why they said that, but anyone with any imagination knows why they said it.
This is a last appeal I make to hon. members opposite. One of them laughs. Does he not admit that voting for the union jack is going to create confusion in his own area?


Mr. Ryan:: Definitely not.


William Heward Grafftey: I am sure many of his electors will tell him about it at the next election.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I know what my electors have told me.


William Heward Grafftey: If it is not a political consideration then I ask why the whip of the government party told us this was a free vote, yet when we in a spirit of good will try to do-hon. members opposite laugh. How cynical that you laugh. When we get on our feet you sneer and laugh. When we tell you what is in our heart of hearts, what is the best thing in the interests of this country, your whip cracks down and you just cower like a bunch of sheep.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I remind the hon. member that he should address the Chair.


William Heward Grafftey: I am sure that the hon. member who has just made that remark does not wish that I address him, because he does not like the sound of these remarks.
The other day when I voted with the government for a distinctive flag I voted in the name of the French speaking and English speaking electors of Brome-Missisquoi for one distinctive flag, for one united Canada. I did not speak on that issue because my people knew where I stood, and I did not think it necessary to take up the time of the house. But I shall take up the time of the house now and do all in my human power to minimize the chance that what we are doing now will make the whole issue a two flag proposition. If hon. members are sincere about the fact that they do not say one thing in Quebec and another outside it, they should stand up to their whip and support this amendment, because it makes good sense.


Maurice Rinfret: On a question of privilege, I wish the whip of your party would talk to you so that you would quit making an hysterical speech in the house.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, that was a false point of privilege. I would have thought the
Canadian Commonwealth Flag assistant whip of the government party would know more about the rules, but obviously he does not have that position on the basis of his knowing too much about them.


Maurice Rinfret: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order please. I must advise the hon. member that his first alleged question of privilege was not even close to being one. I hope his second will be a little more legitimate.


Maurice Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been speaking about the whips of this party, and I happen to be one. He has no right insinuating what are the attitudes of the whips and members of this party about the question of the flag. He should get down to brass tacks and quit using hysterical words. This is an historical moment, not an hysterical one.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason I am on my feet now and it is because I am convinced beyond doubt that if we are rushed into a vote at this late hour on this important question confusion will be created, certainly in my riding. Can we not have a commonwealth flag that in a real sense shows the French fact on it? I do not believe we are a melting-pot society in Canada and I cannot understand why we cannot have the French fact represented on our commonwealth flag.
No other country in the commonwealth of nations has adopted a commonwealth flag in this manner. Cannot hon. members opposite show their good faith and accept at least one amendment during these two debates? Months ago we were told this was going to be a non-political question, that we were going to have a non-political flag or flags. Cannot hon. members opposite, in the face of a patently sensible amendment, show their good faith and non-political consideration by accepting it? I am sure all members from the province of Quebec must consider that this is going to create confusion at a time when needless confusion should not be created.

When the Prime Minister explained his point of view I agreed with him, but when he explained in detail the question of a flag to symbolize our allegiance to the commonwealth, everybody knows, as well as every Liberal member, that the union jack is also the flag of the United Kingdom.

Canadian Commonwealth Flag

Since the French fact has not been signified on our national flag, can we not consider that it should be on our commonwealth flag? Why are hon. members opposite in such a hurry? Can we not consider the possibility of postponing this issue and letting the government decide, with its other commonwealth partners, what would be a suitable commonwealth flag? Is not this a patently sensible amendment? Surely hon. members opposite realize it is.
I make a last appeal. Let me repeat for the third, the fourth, the fifth time that for the good of the country, from Atlantic to Pacific, we should minimize the possibility of this being taken as a two flag resolution. If you plunge hastily into this matter this evening many Canadians in many parts of Canada will unfortunately think that what the Liberal party is playing with is a two flag resolution. Has the hon. member opposite something to say? For heaven's sake let him make a speech on it.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I would like to know what you want.


William Heward Grafftey: I think the hon. member must realize that that interjection was not worthy of him. I want a united Canada and I am sure he does too. If he has a modicum of common sense he could easily follow the principles I am speaking about.
At a time when the Liberal party is flirting with the associate state idea, at a time when we have Liberalism reigning in Quebec and Ottawa, at a time when people in many parts of Canada think they are fostering a two-Canadian theory, for heaven's sake be sensible and accept this amendment, thus minimizing the possibility of having two flags.
When my party voted on the sixth report of the flag committee I was allowed a free vote. I did not agree with the bulk of my party on that report, but to a man the Conservative party stood for one flag for one united Canada. I am sure hon. members opposite feel that way too. If they do they will support this amendment and minimize the chance of making it look like a two flag resolution.
After these brief remarks of mine I hope it is obvious why I have considered it important to rise at this time and make this plea that the government should support the amendment put forward by the Creditiste party. I am about to take my seat, and members opposite know that on the first
[Mr. Grafftey.I
report I was with them all the way. Do they think I am on my feet just to be sneered at and yelled at by them? Members from Quebec yelled at me and said I did not dare vote against the first report. Now they think that because of the population make-up of the county of Brome I am bound to vote in favour of this report. Mr. Speaker, I believe that in my district I have in pilot form the problem which faces the whole country. Why do not members opposite reflect for a few minutes instead of yelling and sneering at members who try to put propositions forward in the best interests of this country?
I have done everything in my power not to let the flag issue become a political football. If I was not acting that way, why did I support hon. members opposite on the first committee report?


An hon. Member:: You had no alternative.


William Heward Grafftey: Who said "You had no alternative"? What did he mean by that? What a cynical remark. Did you hear that-"You had no alternative." What a cynical, political remark. It is unworthy of the hon. member who made it. I will not name his constituency, although I know it. I do not think the constituency would want to be associated with such a remark. This represents the type of cynicism we have always faced in Quebec. A two flag resolution-one for Brome and one for Missisquoi? Never. That is why I left the Liberal party and that is why I am on my feet today pleading with the government to unite this country by supporting the Creditiste amendment.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Are you in favour of, or against, a commonwealth flag?


William Heward Grafftey: If the hon. member had been in the house during the last division he would have seen me voting for the red ensign as a commonwealth flag. I did that because I thought it was distinctive and because I thought its adoption would minimize the chance of this whole flag issue looking like a two flag proposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: May I be given a chance to answer? Now I am on my feet pleading with the house not to adopt the flag of England as a commonwealth flag, because this will confuse the issue and make it a two flag

proposition. Is that clear? Does the hon. member understand? Thank you.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the amendment now before the house proposes to refer back to the committee, for further study, the matter of a symbol for our membership in the commonwealth. Still, this amendment recognizes the principle of a symbol or a second flag.
As for the Conservatives, they have proposed the red ensign. It is their right, and I respect their opinions.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I wish to define briefly the attitude I shall take when we vote in a few minutes, I hope.
I believe in the evolution, along parallel lines, of our country toward its present independence and of the symbolism of our sovereignty. On several occasions I expressed opinions which, to some people, seemed extremist, to others, hasty, and to others still, objective.
These opinions, Mr. Speaker, I have voiced most sincerely and probably with the enthusiasm of the younger generation to which I belong. I shall express them by the negative vote I shall cast, not only on the amendment moved by the Creditistes, but also on the main resolution for the adoption of a symbol of our membership in the commonwealth and our allegiance to the crown.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), I admit that the amendment moved by the Ralliement Credi-tiste makes a lot of sense. I would find it hard to vote against it, but I would do so for the following reasons.
When the house spent several days debating the first resolution proposing the adoption of a distinctive national flag for Canada as well as the union jack as a symbol of our allegiance to the crown, there came a time when the Liberal government agreed, at the request of the opposition, to refer the matter to a committee which studied it attentively for six weeks. The report submitted to the house would have us vote for the adoption of a distinctive national flag with one maple leaf, which has been done already, and also for the adoption of the union jack as a symbol of our allegiance to the crown.
Mr. Speaker, I am ready to agree to the suggestion of the committee which studied that matter thoroughly, looking at it from all angles. But other reasons lead me to favour the adoption of that report. Apart
Canadian Commonwealth Flag from the fact that it is the committee's report, there are reasons of the heart and mind which I want to explain.
This afternoon, during the vote on the Conservative amendment to substitute the red ensign for the union jack as a symbol of our allegiance to the crown, I saw, on the other side of the house, quite a few English speaking Liberal members who had to tear their hearts out in order to vote against that amendment, because the red ensign means more to them than the union jack.
What made those English speaking people from all parts of the country take such a stand? There could be many reasons, but I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that it was surely not because they wanted to be successful at the next election. I have personal friends in the Liberal party and they have assured me that because of the position they took in this case, they run the risk of being defeated at the next federal election.
There must certainly be a more logical reason to their attitude than party unity. In my opinion, this is a positive action so that in a more or less distant future we may actually fly a single maple leaf flag throughout the country as the one and only Canadian flag. Since most Canadians are less fond of the union jack than the red ensign, it would be a less dangerous rival for the single maple leaf flag and, in a few years, the single maple leaf flag will be increasingly displayed instead of the union jack.
In my opinion, this is the reason why the Prime Minister proposed that second flag rather than the red ensign as a symbol of our allegiance to the commonwealth. I believe also that the fact we have the union jack in the flag resolution will make easier and less confused the intermediate stage toward the national and full recognition of our single maple leaf flag.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I do not see any objection to voting for the union jack as a symbol of our allegiance to the commonwealth, because first in my opinion it does not mean much and, second, it will provide an intermediate stage, as I said, that will permit our distinctive national flag to be accepted more rapidly and with less confusion.


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I feel I must say a few words about the amendment we have moved. I am in favour of this amendment, first of all, because it is logical; second, because it is patriotic; third, because it is sensible and

Canadian Commonwealth Flag uniting and, fourth, because it is Canadian and protects our sovereignty.
As I have already said in this house, Canada is a sovereign country, and I keep this in mind. Since we are a sovereign country, we do not need any other flag. It is useless to accept another symbol. It would be detrimental to Canadians and carry separatism to extremes to accept another symbol.
We barely managed to adopt a flag. We now have one and it is under it that we must live and die.
Mr. Speaker, we now have a flag. It was forced upon us, we know, but it is still the Canadian flag, the flag around which we must rally and unite. We must salute it proudly.
That noble flag, Mr. Speaker, might see some rough days, but we must love it, fly it, defend it and even die for it, if need be, if we are true Canadians.
To show its sovereignty, our flag had to be distinctive. Now that we have it, let us rejoice. That hard-won flag is the symbol of our aspirations, our ambitions, our legitimate pride, our unity, our loyalty, our Canadian nationality. It fulfils at last the legitimate wishes of Canadian men and women in this land.
This noble and beautiful flag will grow with the Canadian people, as long as we all remain Canadians, just plain Canadians.
This flag will be respected as long as the Canadians it represents will be able to live decently on Canadian soil, enjoying freedom, security and a decent standard of living, as long as every Canadian will be respected and recognized right across Canada, from one ocean to the other, from the north pole to the parallel separating us from the United States.
That is the meaning of our flag, the Canadian flag. A Canadian flag does not mean two flags. It does not mean the union jack or the red ensign.
With the greatest difficulties we have finally succeeded in giving our country a distinctive national flag. Let us not offend our Canadian people by imposing upon them an official flag of foreign origin, even though we recognize its greatness and its merits in its own country.
Mr. Speaker, when we study the background and origin of flags, we find that the union jack remains the emblem of Great Britain, under a royal proclamation of January 1, 1801 and that the red ensign, authorized in England by Queen Ann in 1707 and by Queen Victoria in 1864 is, in accordance with section 72 of the merchant and shipping act, 1894, the national flag of all the ships and crafts owned by British citizens.
[Mr. Latulippe.l

If the Canadian people truly wish to express their newly acquired truly Canadian citizenship, which has been theirs since January 1, 1947, and if they want to show a truly distinctive patriotism, those two foreign flags cannot fulfil their national and legitimate hopes.
I see absolutely no point in having two flags in the statutes of Canada. We have approved one flag, we have expressed ourselves clearly on the final choice: a flag free from all signs of race, colour or religion, free from prejudice, a truly Canadian flag. We should leave it at that.
If the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) lacked sincerity or diplomacy in requesting two flags for our country, let him suffer the consequences and turn back, because the people of Canada, like the people of all other countries, are quite content with their Canadian flag, a single national and distinctive flag, among all the other countries of the world.
Instead of wrangling over two flags-and I am speaking to all members of the house -we should unite in order to obtain a national anthem and a national day; we should not be fighting for political purposes.
We do not resent any nation flying its flag for the purposes of its national life, but we believe that our national flag is sufficient to express our own Canadian and national life. If some Canadians do not like our flag, let them go and live under another flag; in my opinion, true Canadians will be proud to live under an exclusively Canadian flag, a distinctive flag belonging to the Canadian nation.
We approved the closure motion concerning this flag issue on condition that there would be no further debate on the flag, but that it would be saluted, loved and respected, and that it would not be disowned immediately by imposing, within our own walls, an arrogant and outmoded competitor on this American soil.
Does the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) imagine that closure is like an election promise? If he was unable to have closure observed, he should not have imposed it. Now that closure has been imposed, we must abide by it. Let us respect our flag and continue to administer our country, Canada, for the good of all its citizens, for the good of all its 19,400,000 Canadians who have vested in us the administration of their right to life, freedom and personal security.
There is a limit to filibustering in the case of a flag, but not for two. There are other problems to be solved in Canada, apart from

the problem of a second flag. There was certainly a lack of sincerity and diplomacy on the part of the Prime Minister, perhaps not by himself, but by his wrong attitude in the present circumstances experienced by Canada.
People who lack bread have enough of one flag.
A second flag would be an uncalled for luxury. Let us think about giving the people the daily necessities of life, before we think of the luxury of a second flag.
Let us put an end to the discussions on the flag. Let us manage the country, which has enough of one Canadian flag, for all of the 19,400,000 citizens who want to live united in the eyes of God and under the only emblem of one Canadian flag.
We are of those who want to go ahead. There is a limit to filibustering, to the conspiracy of silence, to blindness in the face of real and serious problems, merely to defend political myths, Grit or Tory. The people want a flag, but not to the prejudice of their bread, their lives and their security. Not a single hour can be found to study the problems of unemployment, poverty and indigence among hard working and peaceful people, the personal, family and social problems which are facing us now and require an immediate solution.
There is much uncertainty among Canadians. The number of poverty-stricken and discontented people is increasing. With your nonsense, you are preparing the plague which will punish your political follies.
Because of the inertia of the two old parties, the public debt is increasing, interest is increasing, taxes are rising, the taxpayers' pockets are empty and people have to deny themselves everything.
Because of the two old parties' inertia, we see our businesses and industries going bankrupt, and the farmers are in a new depression. Sabotage is a criminal destruction, and the saboteur is a destructive criminal.
The saboteur is a parasite who leads a life of luxury, makes his profit on sweat labour and does not mind the plight of those who, because of him, have to tramp the streets in search of work.
After a life of labour, endurance and continuous fortitude, the human nest has become the prey of parasites. The land, worked at great pains, is mortgaged to the hilt, and nobody finds the time to discuss and find a solution to the serious economic problems which, in this century of progress and science, condemn and abuse our fellow men.
Canadian Commonwealth Flag


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we have considered the amendment brought forward by the Creditistes and, frankly, I find its logic quite wrong.
Even, if, on the whole, I support the feelings of my colleague for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) concerning this matter and the futility of two flags, on the other hand, I am unable to support this amendment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this amendment seeks to recommit the seventh report to the committee so as to recommend to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that he defer any action on a second flag until one is chosen by the commonwealth prime ministers at their next meeting. This suggestion might have some merit for acceptance if the proposed second flag were to be singly or uniquely a symbol of our membership in the commonwealth. I intend to speak on the main motion so I will therefore limit my remarks at this point, but 1 say that this is a sop to those people who feel that there is a division in or a cutting off of our ties with Great Britain and the crown as a result of the flag that has been chosen.
If we examine the composition of the commonwealth we find it is composed of a number of self-governing dominions and a number who pay no allegiance to the crown and Queen. In this country she forms one of the elements of our parliament. However, there are many members of the commonwealth which are republics wherein the Queen figures not one iota. Within the concept of the commonwealth these countries are prepared to accept the Queen as the symbolic figure of head of the commonwealth. Theirs is merely a political adherence to the commonwealth, whereas ours goes much further than that. I say that this would be a complete denial of the government's proposal for a second flag as outlined in this resolution, namely that there must be some symbol of loyalty and affection to Her Majesty by the adoption of this second flag. Right away we can see that if this matter were referred for decision to a commonwealth prime ministers' meeting those countries which have no connection with the crown would immediately say they refuse to have any element in that flag which would tie them to the crown or to the Queen of Great Britain and the Queen of Canada. The flag which they would propose would have removed or eliminated from it any symbol of loyalty and affection to the Queen. Therefore we would

Canadian Commonwealth Flag have a national flag, and/or a second commonwealth flag.
For this reason I feel that the amendment to this motion is illogical, even though I dislike intensely the report itself, as I shall outline at the next stage of this debate. I do not think that the acceptance of this amendment would mean anything other than limiting any second flag to being the symbol which represents the commonwealth, because it could not in any way represent any symbol of loyalty and affection to Her Majesty. If that is what this group wish to be the aim of a second flag then that is fine, but they have not said so. One day they pay lip service to Her Majesty as Queen of this country, and the next day they say we should remove any suggestion or symbol from any flag of Canada of loyalty and affection for Her Majesty.
The proposal for a second flag must assume as a basic premise that the first one is a limp one, because it apparently does not contain any symbol of loyalty or affection for Her Majesty. In the form of government we have, Her Majesty is as integral a part of parliament as is this chamber. That fact is accepted by the vast majority of the people of this country.
For those reasons I believe we have clearly indicated that on these flag questions, including the motion and amendment now before us, all hon. members on this side have a freedom of choice. Certainly I am not in favour of this amendment and when the time comes to vote I shall vote against it.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I already expressed my opinion on the flag yesterday. As I said then in this house, we have had enough difficulty giving our country a truly national flag and we should not, with an illogical resolution, make a mess of everything that was done thanks to the last vote taken after closure.
If we were able to accuse the Conservative party of deliberately wasting the time of the house on the matter of a distinctive national flag, we can now accuse the Liberals of deliberately wasting more time by trying to have a second national flag approved by the house. We will be the only country in the world to have, by virtue of a government act, two flags which will compete with one another according to the whims of the people in each province. The second flag, we are told, will serve to show our allegiance to the crown, but if the English provinces decide- and they would have the right to do so-to


show their allegiance to the crown 365 days a year, who can stop them? Could that be the way out used by the Prime Minister to have the single leaf flag accepted by certain English reactionary elements? Everything is possible with this government which lacks determination.
As I said in my last speech, the government cannot give as a reason our membership in the commonwealth of nations. In this connection, I support wholeheartedly this motion introduced by our group to the effect that it is up to the commonwealth association, that is all the prime ministers as a group, to decide on the flag of that organization known as the commonwealth of nations and to discuss at such a meeting the matter of a distinctive emblem for that community.
This government suggests that the union jack has always been considered as the emblem of the commonwealth. Perhaps it was at the time of the British commonwealth, in the sense that the British commonwealth or England directed everything and it had borrowed this expression to have the years of its colonialism forgotten.
Today it is a dictatorial act, while England is our equal partner, and this is the reason why we say the "commonwealth of nations", because even the countries which have completely rejected royalty are members of this association.
Do you really believe that this suggestion of the Canadian government concerning the union jack would be agreed to by these countries which have repudiated royalty? They would agree even less to a country enacting the recognition of the union jack as the emblem of the commonwealth of nations, as this would be an unprecedented attack against all these free countries from a member country.
At most, we could agree to refer the matter to a committee of the house, and suggest-I do not say order, but suggest-to the Prime Minister at the next meeting of all the representatives of the other member countries of the association, to propose this matter of an emblem representing the commonwealth of nations. We do not say that it is necessary to wait for this meeting, to wait for a decision of the people responsible for the commonwealth to adopt it; no we simply say "suggest to the Prime Minister, at the meeting, the selection of an emblem to represent the commonwealth of nations among the member countries".
This is the only course that can be legally taken by parliament in this field.

The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) said a moment ago that we are, in fact, accepting a second flag. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say at this point that there is the word "necessarily", if the association decides on a flag that will represent the commonwealth of nations.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member-

It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair. At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, to resume my remarks which were interrupted at six o'clock I was saying that the hon. member for Lotbiniere claimed in his speech that we were accepting a second flag in principle. Quite the contrary. We would accept the emblem to be chosen by the whole commonwealth of nations, if ever the prime ministers concerned were so to decide, just as we accept the use of NATO emblems and those of other organizations. Still, we do so in principle only, and not under a federal act, for the day we decide to withdraw from NATO, from the commonwealth or any other international group, we no longer have any use for those emblems.
This does not mean that we recognize two Canadian flags, one for week days and the other for Sundays. We want one flag and one flag only.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said that our amendment is illogical. I wonder in what books he learned his definition of logic.
If it is illogical to let the real authorities of the commonwealth select the emblem which should represent that association, I do not understand anything about logic.
Everybody will agree that what we are asking for in our amendment is merely common sense. Therefore, I urge all members of each party to support the amendment proposed by this group.
Thus, we would not encroach on anybody's authority. We would not bring about any conflict, any misunderstanding and above all, any unfortunate complication. We would not
Canadian Commonwealth Flag dictate anything to anybody and we would leave full and complete freedom of action to all member countries. We are only expressing one of our dearest wishes, that is to obtain eventually an emblem for the commonwealth, just like there is one for the United Nations and NATO, an emblem which we could fly during meetings of the commonwealth of nations.
Mr. Speaker, I made those remarks so that the purpose of our amendment may be understood, and I hope that every member will make it his duty to support it.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, as I did not have the opportunity to take part in the debate following the presentation of the sixth report, 1 now want to congratulate all those members who, for six weeks, studied the matter of choosing a distinctive national flag, which was adopted last Monday evening.
The committee also submitted a report which has been discussed in this house since last Tuesday.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that there is increasing unity on the distinctive national flag chosen by the majority in the house last Monday, and we must now, in accordance with the recommendation of the seventh report of the committee, choose a second flag.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), who declared after studying the seventh report of the committee, that nine members had voted for its adoption while five members had voted against.
And, by chance, it so happens that the five members who seemed to take a logical course in the work to be done by this committee were Conservative members who, oppose, just like their party, the adoption of a second flag.
It is alleged as a pretext in the committee report that we have to adopt a second flag as a sign of our membership in the commonwealth of united nations and of our allegiance to the British crown. It is permissible to wonder whether, since Canada adhered to the commonwealth, that is since 1945, it has expressed its allegiance to the British crown, because we did not have the union jack to proclaim, as suggested in the report, our membership in the commonwealth of nations and our allegiance to the British crown.
We wonder where "Joe" is in this seventh report. And speaking of "Joe", we might ask whether it is not the premier of Newfoundland who influenced the federal members of
11286	HOUSE OF
Canadian Commonwealth Flag his province, because this premier said that he would never tolerate any flag other than the union jack or the red ensign to be flown on government buildings in his province.
Why two flags, Mr. Speaker?


William Heward Grafftey: Why two?


Rémi Paul: Why two? And I was very interested in the remarks, or the explanation, which the right hon. Prime Minister tried to give when supporting the report of the committee chairman. He has not brought forward any arguments, he has only provided pretexts.
Is there a country in the world with two flags?
We have had to wait 97 years to have a distinctive national flag and now, within three or four days, we are going to have two flags to offer to the Canadian people and to the rest of the world.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest also to some hon. members of my own province who have risen in support of the second proposed flag, the union jack; no doubt, I shall have the pleasure of seeing them in my riding, during the next election, with the two flags.


William Heward Grafftey: Never, only one.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, the seventh report of the committee is going to be put to a vote. Let us hope it will be tonight. Now, I want to take this opportunity to tell my colleagues, the members of the province of Quebec: "Be completely at ease to rise and vote against the adoption of the second flag." The right hon. Prime Minister has told us that it was going to be a free vote. We, in the Conservative party, are absolutely free to vote as we please on matters dealt with in this report and I hope the Liberal members are also free to do so.
I have no doubt-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: You were not free, a
while ago, in caucus.


Rémi Paul: I hear the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets), my good friend the Minister of Public Works. How enthusiastically the voters will salute you when you offer them these two flags. You could say: My dear constituents, we are the only government in the world to give two flags to its citizens.
I hope to have the opportunity to see the flag for special occasions flying in front of the house of the Minister of Public Works and the second flag behind his residence or


vice-versa. What a sight, Mr. Speaker, two flags being bestowed on Canada.
I see the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), my good friend. I would like him to name a republic in the world which has two flags.


Auguste Choquette: Nigeria.


Rémi Paul: Perhaps the republic of Lotbiniere will have two flags.


Auguste Choquette: Name me a party with two leaders who disagree.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I should be unable to reply to the one who has just spoken as he does not speak from his seat, which he does quite often.


Gilles Grégoire: He does not know the standing orders.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: And the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan)?


Rémi Paul: Why, Mr. Speaker, does the government bring forward this second flag which we do not need?
I was listening with great admiration and emotion to the right hon. Prime Minister when, on the nights of Monday and Tuesday, he made a plea for unity around a distinctive national flag to be chosen by the House of Commons. Why give the opportunity to the people of Canada to divide around two flags? Only one flag can represent the most legitimate aspirations of all the citizens of Canada to make our country progress; only one flag is sufficient to proclaim to the whole world that, finally, under the banner of this new flag, there are no longer different races or languages, but, on the contrary, that the rights of the minorities are respected, because all the people are willing to co-operate, to walk hand in hand toward progress and prosperity for Canada?
But no, it is an occasion for division, as has always practised the Liberal party which preaches different policies in the English speaking provinces and in the province of Quebec.
We are sincere, we want the tremendous sacrifice we made last Monday to sanction our choice not to be in vain. We do not want this flag to be an occasion for dispute, but it will be, Mr. Speaker, if the government persists in its plan and tries, as it has always done in other fields, to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
Mr. Speaker, we will not vote for a second flag. Personally, I will also vote against the

subamendment moved by the Creditistes and I will tell you why: I have listened to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) who denied the principle of the resolution submitted to the house concerning a second flag.
They said that this measure was ridiculous and useless, and now, after having denied the very basis thereof, they are tacking on an amendment.
Mr. Speaker, how could something which is radically unsound be improved by tacking something on, namely the proposed amendment-


Gilles Grégoire: Sometimes, there may be something wrong in the head, while the feet are still good. That is your case.


Rémi Paul: As far as the hon. member for Lapointe is concerned, neither the head nor the feet are good.
What do we read in this amendment? Nothing, except that they dare not rise and say: We are against a second flag. They try to please their Social Credit friends in other provinces by introducing an amendment so that the Prime Minister, at the next meeting of commonwealth members, may suggest that the British commonwealth of nations endorse a flag to which all the nations could agree. In my opinion, it is a devious means to encourage the adoption of the union jack, of a second flag, which is quite wrong and does not deserve any more consideration and support than the main motion itself.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate-


Gilles Grégoire: Why can't you talk sense.


Rémi Paul: I always talk most intelligently and, above all, sensibly.
I always hear that voice preaching in the desert.
They realize the mistake they have just made in trying to introduce an amendment whereby a second Canadian flag could be indirectly adopted. If it was not the union jack, then another would replace it as a second flag. And what would it be called? What would it represent? The Creditiste members could not care less, but they accept and recognize the principle that we must have, according to them and according to the Liberal party, a second flag in Canada.
I say the proposed amendment is quite unacceptable. I would be very much surprised if the majority of my colleagues were to support it, since it is illogical, ridiculous and
Canadian Commonwealth Flag stupid. It is just as stupid as the main motion itself.
I have no doubt that hon. members opposite, especially those from Quebec, will recall that freedom of expression promised by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) last June and that, when the time comes for them to vote on the main motion, they will have the courage and especially feel free-as we did in our party when it was time to vote on the sixth report-to vote according to their convictions. Such a freedom will not be denied them, I am sure, because the Prime Minister would not find it easy to go back on the solemn word he gave in this house.
Then, at last, it will be possible to have just one flag around which could rally-and I do not mean Ralliement Creditiste-all the men of good will who live in this great country of ours, so we could improve our standing among the free nations of the world. .
One may wonder if this second flag will not raise a question of international law.
I would appreciate if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) who last summer during a mission connected with his department, visited Europe and particularly Great Britain, would tell us if Her Majesty the Queen was consulted concerning the adoption, by Canada, of a flag which is hers as well as that of Great Britain, namely, the union jack?
What would happen if the Governor General were to refuse to assent to the order in council which will give Canada a second flag? Can the Governor General, on his own and according to international law, give Canada a flag which already belongs to the authority he represents and to Great Britain? What will happen then?
The government would have to submit to Her Majesty the Queen the matter now under consideration and if it were approved and accepted by Her Majesty the Queen, the Governor General could sign the royal proclamation.
But let us suppose that he refused to sign it? Suppose that the Governor General would resign. Anything is possible, Mr. Speaker, fText]


David Réal Caouette: Ask John.


Rémi Paul: Pardon?


David Réal Caouette: Ask John.

Canadian Commonwealth Flag [Translation]


William Heward Grafftey: He is referring to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker).


Rémi Paul: Ask John. I would say: "Ask Real."
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, in order to become final this royal proclamation must bear the signature of the Governor General. Has the latter the right to give our country a flag which is already that of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?
A problem of constitutional and international law arises. Can the Governor General, without consulting Her Majesty the Queen, allow Canada to have a second flag, the union jack, which has already been chosen by our ruler, Her Majesty the Queen?
Unless the Minister of Transport had the opportunity to discuss the matter when he was in London last summer, the problem has remained unanswered. If at that time, the Minister of Transport consulted Her Majesty the Queen, it might be interesting to know what answer he obtained. If he did not consult Her Majesty the Queen, let us by all means do so, for I fear the Governor General might be faced with a dilemma which, from the point of view of international law, would prevent the implementation of the order in council adopted by the government, provided of course a second flag is adopted by the house, not to unify Canada but to divide it.
We have had the opportunity of selecting a first flag. I have no doubt that the hon. members on the other side, specially those from the province of Quebec, will set aside all partisan considerations and vote-


Mr.   Coie@Longueuil: You have no right to mention my name in this house.


Rémi Paul: Does the hon. member for Longueuil have a question to ask me?


Mr.   Coie@Longueuil: You said "l'esprit de parti de c6te." I made the remark because you mentioned my name, and it is forbidden to mention a member by name in the house.


Rémi Paul: I have no doubt that the hon. members will be allowed to have a free vote against the subamendment which is even more illogical than the main motion, and Canada will have only one flag after 97 years of existence.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the main motion and against the subamendment.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), one is reminded of a proverb which could very well be applied to him, namely: There are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear. I think that is literally true in the case of the hon. member. If he had listened to the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), he would have known exactly where we stood and would not have talked through his hat. It seems that he wants to get the population as confused as the members of his own party. That is why I will not waste my time disproving what he tried to say, because he simply got everything mixed up. I will therefore proceed with my speech.
I will try to be brief because I feel the marathon has gone on long enough in this house.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the seventh report of the special flag committee and I strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule).
I believe that for the good of Canada the said flag committee should be reconvened, with instructions to suggest to the Prime Minister that he propose the adoption of a British commonwealth flag at the next meeting of the prime ministers of the member countries of the commonwealth. This does not mean that we accept a second flag, but on the contrary that we do not want a second flag adopted by the Canadian parliament. This is up to the commonwealth and let the commonwealth find some emblem. It is not our problem, and that is what it means.
I think it is not our responsibility, as members of parliament, to accept or impose a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth and of our allegiance to the crown.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that it was our responsibility to give the country a truly distinctive flag. And that is what we were happy to do. But when it comes to accepting a second flag for this country, we beg to disagree. If there is only one Canada, there should be only one flag. At first, the government showed great courage when introducing in the house a motion to endow this country with a flag of its own. But what a mistake was made when, a little later, Mr. Speaker, Canada was to receive a second flag.
We have waited 97 years, sir, to have a flag, and I think we might be ready to wait another 97 years before discussing this sec-

ond flag the government wants to impose on us. Those two flags have brought about all the confusion we are now witnessing in this country.
The government, in its desire to please both ethnic groups in our country, did just the opposite, that is it managed to set both factions one against the other with speeches such as those we have heard from the Conservatives.
If two flags and two national anthems are imposed, do we want parliament to accept, without knowing it, that from then on, our country will consist of two associate states? If such is the case, we should know about it so that, in the next parliament, we could see here representatives of each of those different states, and we should consider at once an amendment to our Canadian constitution and an acknowledgement of the respective rights of each of those two states.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will accept our amendment and that we will not hear anything more about this second flag if, really, it is not in the government's mind to recognize, by that very fact, two associate states in Canada.
Now, if parliament votes against this amendment, it will mean that it advocates, in this country, two associate states, and the responsible people will actually be those who are now in office.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion.


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


Bruce Silas Beer: I was paired; had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I abstained from voting, and I cannot see why anybody-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: -in this house has to support something that they voted against nine times.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, other than for the few remarks I made this afternoon on the amendment which has just been voted upon, I have not spoken in the debate on this motion for concurrence in the committee's report. I have just a few remarks I should like to make in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wish hon. members opposite had the courtesy to listen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In fairness to the hon. member who has the floor may we have a little quiet in the chamber.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I must comment on the noise that comes across from some members sitting on the opposite side as though they had gas on the stomach and were relieving themselves. I feel that this house is entitled to hear the opinions of all members. We are quite prepared to listen to hon. members, even hon. members opposite when the occasion arises and they do not behave like trained seals. In particular we would


like to hear from some of the members from the province of Quebec.

And I should like to know what will be the attitude of the members of the province of Quebec who voted against the red ensign, because it was a foreign symbol and who now intend to support the government's proposal so that Canada may be given a second flag that is even more foreign than the first, if it was. Then, we should like to know which arguments they will use to adopt the union jack as a second flag for Canada, and it is indeed a second flag.


David Réal Caouette: That is correct.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Of course, the union jack is a nice flag, but it is the flag of Great Britain. It is not the Canadian flag. I am proud of my affection for Great Britain, because after all I married a girl from over there and I studied in England, but I can tell you that, in my view, the union jack is not a flag for Canada.

Any way you want to cut it, Mr. Speaker, this is the same loaf of bread we had last June when the government introduced its resolution which the Chair divided into two parts, one dealing with the national flag and the other with the second flag. Shortly after that resolution was introduced I was in Europe and may I say that Canadians abroad, and our friends abroad were absolutely astounded at what they considered was the completely illogical position taken by the government.
We can, of course, advance all sorts of reasons why this was done. A charge has been made in the press and elsewhere that this was a sop or pacifier to certain sectors of the country.


An hon. Member:: Where?


Mr. Lamberi:: Well, first of all, I know one provincial premier at the eastern extremity of the country who said, "I don't care what flag they adopt in Ottawa so long as it is the union jack or the red ensign, because the union jack is what is going to fly in this province." I am sure there were many government backbenchers who were also astounded when they saw the form of the resolutions calling for two flags. Everybody had talked about a distinctive national flag, not two flags; yet this is what was produced.
In view of the appeal the red ensign had throughout the country, and in view of its general popular support, if we were to have

a second flag showing our devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty, one would have thought we would adopt the red ensign. But no, the government refuses and we are to take the flag of another country, the royal union flag. It is certainly a royal flag in the United Kingdom, but I ask what is the government afraid of? Is it afraid that if the red ensign were put alongside the one maple leaf flag it would still be the popular flag?
Further, if the red ensign was so unpopular in the province of Quebec-and we had scores and scores of members saying it should not fly in this country-how much more chance is there of the union jack flying in that area? I would say considerably less, and with justification because it is not the flag of Canada. I find it a little difficult to see why, by vote of this house we should take the flag of another country and make it our own. What right have we to do this?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It takes some doing.


William Heward Grafftey: It certainly does.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which way will you vote?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May we have order in the house, and may I bring to the attention of the hon. member who has the floor that this time the noise is coming from his side of the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is a good exchange. I am competing against a lot, Mr. Speaker, but, as I was saying, what right have we to take over the flag of another country?
I think hon. members opposite should read the comments that appeared in part of the British press, in regard to this whole flag question. They were not very complimentary to Canada.
In resume, Mr. Speaker, I say that if the government had real faith in its original flag proposal there would not have been any need for this second resolution which, after all, was brought in only after the flag committee had reversed itself. At the very beginning in the committee there was a unanimous resolution that the committee would discuss one flag and one flag only, but the time came when it swung around on this because someone had to deal with the second portion of the original resolution which had been divided by the Chair.
This is not our flag to take, although it is a very respectable, and I would say beautiful flag. But it will have no greater attraction, in fact even less attraction than the red ensign in many parts of the country. How can one distinguish between public occasions so as
Canadian Commonwealth Flag to decide an occasion on which not to show loyalty and devotion to Her Majesty? On all public occasions, then, we will have the two flags flying. I was talking to a man who controls a large building on which there are two flagpoles. He said to me: Which flag am I to put at the front and which am I to put at the back; which is to have precedence, and when?
If the government had shown faith in its flag proposal it would have asked the house to adopt one flag; it would have left the other off. The second portion of the flag proposal is an admission of weakness in the premise for the first. I am sure that Her Majesty and all others concerned would have more respect for us had we said: All right, we will have one flag; we may have disagreed as to the nature of that one flag, but the disagreement has been resolved or is in the process of being resolved, and we will stick by it. I have just as close a connection with the United Kingdom and just as much devotion for Her Majesty as anyone in this house, but I think I show greater respect when I say we should not take over for our own use a flag which is the flag of Great Britain. I would hope that the flag of Canada would itself show devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty. We do not have to go about wearing that like a badge on our sleeves. This is something which flows from our actions, from our support and recognition of the crown as part of the parliament of Canada. In my opinion it was unnecessary to bring this second flag forward.
Those are the observations I wish to make on this motion.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should like to state that I am not one of those who speak for hours on many occasions, and who, then, turns around and accuses others of making lengthy remarks. In fact I controlled myself for a while, but I found out that it was not to much avail.
We had before us the sixth report of the committee which was passed a few days ago.
We are considering now the seventh report about which, in my opinion, the members expressed their views in a rather substantial manner, especially since they had made them well known during the consideration of the sixth report. I believe that the best way to make one's opinion known, with regard to a committee report, is through a vote.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) stated a while ago that he was anxious to know what the Que-

Canadian Commonwealth Flag bee members would do. He should let us vote, and then he will find out.
Several amendments were moved, and at this stage I must point out to the house that when the Conservatives were accused of obstruction, at least in the meantime we could work in our offices, the ministers could attend to their work and the committees could sit. But when an amendment was moved, the committees could not sit and the ministers could not perform their work, because everyone had to be called back to the house in order to vote on a question the result of which was known beforehand.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that if it can be said that some overstepped the mark in their speeches, others did the same through the amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not express any other opinion this evening for, as early as on the 18th of August, I recommended that closure be imposed by the government, as I felt that it had given all members opportunity to express their views. If only the members had had new opinions, new interpretations or new solutions to proffer: but back came the same old speeches.
I had even declared that if, as a private member, it had been in my power to apply closure, I should have been pleased to do so. But I realized that it was impossible for me to do it, as only a minister could move closure.
Before moving a motion myself and notwithstanding the respect I have for the committee, I wish to express my personal views and those of my constituents.
There are in my riding about 85,000 voters, and none of them asked me to vote for a second flag. In fact, in the few letters which were sent to me, I was told to vote for a distinctive flag but, for goodness' sake, for one only. That means that I will vote against the adoption of a new flag to mark our allegiance to the crown. I wonder also why others voted against one flag and wanted to propose another one? I am against any flag to show our membership in the commonwealth. We should use our national flag in the meetings of the commonwealth nations as elsewhere.
Moreover, I wonder whether those who said they would vote against the union jack, because it is the flag of another country, will not be the first to stand up and sing "God Save the Queen" which is also the national anthem of another country.
Personally, I already stated that I was against; I am against another flag. I am


against the adoption as ours of another country's flag.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the debate should certainly be allowed to continue in the house, since hon. members are free to speak, but there should be no other amendment.
Therefore, in order to have no more amendments to discuss, and basing my suggestion on standing order 51 which says:
The previous question... shall be in the following words, "That the question be now put"-
And, further on, citation 216, paragraph 2 of Beauchesne, fourth edition:
The previous question prevents an amendment to the main question and thus forces a direct vote on the main question.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf:
That the vote be now taken on this question. [Text]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?
Is the hon. member for Skeena addressing the house on the motion?


Frank Howard: I hope to, if I get the floor. I really do not think the motion which is before you should be put at this time. All it does is attempt to choke off the birth of debate on this particular question which is before us. It is a lefthanded way of introducing closure, especially in view of the fact that a great number of members in all parties have, as I understand, reached a general understanding about the time at which the debate should end in any event. There is a certain hazard involved in rising to speak about this question and about the question of the flag itself; that is, that one may become guilty by association of something of which he is not guilty. For instance, my own view with respect to the whole number of motions which have been before us in respect of the two flags for Canada could, on the one hand, make me an associate of les Quebecois members in the house and I would thus be sort of tainted with that; or, on the other hand-and this applies to other members also-I might become guilty by association with the Liberal party. God forbid. I do not know which would be the worst of the two, really. Even taking another course could make one guilty by association with the Conservative party.


William Heward Grafftey: No, no, no, no.


Frank Howard: Those are aspects of this question that one has to consider. The hon. mem-

ber for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) says, "No, no, no, no", and I agree with him. I know he objects to my association with him as much as the reverse applies.


William Heward Grafftey: Politically.


Frank Howard: Yes; not with him personally, but with the party. So, Mr. Speaker, the views I want to express and make clear are my own and I am sure each hon. member has approached this question in the same way. I start off in that way because I intend to take a particular course with respect to the report of the committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't you think we should vote on it tonight?


Frank Howard: That was an inane question from the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), who asked, "Don't you think we should vote on it tonight?" He, of all people, is attempting to rush to a conclusion a debate of this sort. It may be that he has worn out his filibustering techniques; I do not know. However, I think we should look at the report of the committee from the point of view of its original birthplace, which was in the devious mind of the member who was then the member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) when he sat on this side of the house in opposition and when the Liberal party were groping desperately for all sorts of appealing ideas to place before anybody who would listen to them, in the hope of gaining some political support in the country and getting back into the seats of government, which they obviously accomplished. At that time the then member for Bonavista-Twillingate came up with the nightmarish idea that we should not have a distinctive national flag but that we should have two flags. This two flag policy was quickly dubbed the two-faced policy, which I think was the more appropriate designation for it then and is now, because the basis of it was not particularly to develop some sort of symbolic banner for Canada as much as it was to appeal to different sections of the nation, to different ethnic groups within the nation. I think we have to look at it in that light. This was the birthplace of the so-called distinctive national flag, namely the appeal that flag would have within the borders of only one of the provinces, the province of Quebec.
On the other hand, the other half of this two-faced flag policy, namely the part relating to the union jack, was designed, again, to cater to and appeal to one particular province initially, and latterly to other people
Canadian Commonwealth Flag who are pro-British in extraction. The province I am talking about is the province of Newfoundland. The only ethnic group of people who were not considered by the government-perhaps I should put it more strongly and say the only ethnic group of people in Canada that was completely disregarded by the government in their preparation of these flag designs was the group to which we should be paying the greatest amount of attention in regard to anything symbolic, namely the people who were here a long, long time before the Europeans came over.


John Ross Matheson: It's a red flag for the red man.


Frank Howard: I refer to our native Indian people. Some smart character on the other side said something about a red flag for the red man. That indicates to me the degree of ignorance he has or his degree of disdain for the native Indian people, to classify them in the vernacular of Hollywood movie-makers.


William Heward Grafftey: A typical Liberal approach.


Frank Howard: In any event, Mr. Speaker, with all that as a background I cannot for the life of me see the logic of this parliament embarking upon a course of adopting a flag that belongs to another country. Stretching this idea a little further, one might ask the government to bring in a motion indicating that we should fly the stars and stripes, old glory, because of our association with NORAD. What is the difference in that? Would they think of such a course? Would they think of proposing that idea because we happen to be associates on the North American continent? It is just the same. They sell wheat, following the example set by the Tories, to the People's Republic of China. Why not fly their flag, commemorating the fact that China has bailed us out of our difficult position in regard to our balance of international payments? That is equally logical. We belong to the United Nations, and I think that if we are going to fly any other flag commemorating our association with other countries of the world it should be the United Nations flag above all else. Why don't we approach it on that basis? In any event, Mr. Speaker, with that as an introduction I would say that I have no intention of voting to endorse the union jack being flown in this nation for any purpose, because it is a flag that belongs to another country

Canadian Commonwealth Flag and we have no business whatever appropriating it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, a few words only in order to explain my stand in connection with the votes that will take place in a moment.
We are requested to vote on the final report of the flag committee, a report suggesting the adoption of the union jack as a symbol of our membership in the commonwealth.
When I refer to the motion that had been made in the house to set up that committee, I note that in the French as well as the English text, it is written:
That is it established to study the question of the flag.
I really wonder why this committee had to submit a seventh report suggesting that a second flag be voted on here in this house. It had been requested to study the flag question, flag, not the question of flags.
I, therefore, strongly question the fact that the committee is suggesting a vote this evening.
I would more readily believe that the government is using a roundabout way to make believe there was unanimity among the parties in order to have us adopt a second flag in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not go over all the reasons which have been given here, why we should vote for a second flag in this country. I would simply appeal to my Liberal colleagues of the province of Quebec before it is too late.
Not very long ago, and on several occasions, my Liberal colleagues from the province of Quebec applauded loudly the courage and daring of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). They even allowed themselves, on several occasions, to applaud your humble servant who rose to vote against his own party.
I would remind them, Mr. Speaker, that you have to be courageous and bold to do it, and that is hard. I should like to remind them particularly that you have to be most conscientious to vote against your own party, knowing that, for once, the interest of the voters lies on the other side.
Tonight I should like them to recall the courage, the boldness and the fortitude shown by the hon. member for Three Rivers who, on three or four occasions, voted against his own


party in order to properly represent the voters of his riding and his province.
I do not see the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette), but I do see the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville (Mr. Dupuis). Those gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, speak loudly on the hustings and I would like to ask them tonight to speak just as loudly in order to voice the views of their voters who insist-and I challenge them to say the contrary-that they vote against the union jack as a second Canadian flag.
Mr. Speaker, this appeal is a simple one. The right hon. Prime Minister made it himself when he stated:
The members of my party are free to vote according to their conscience.
I challenge my Liberal colleagues from the province of Quebec to vote according to their conscience tonight. If they vote for the union jack, I challenge them to explain their attitude to the people of Quebec immediately. I challenge them to vote against the union jack.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, it was easy to applaud the hon. member for Three Rivers, as well as those other members who followed him. It was said that they had voted against their own party. They were not voting against their party, Mr. Speaker, they were voting according to the wishes of their electors, they were voting according to their conscience, because the leader of their party had left them free to do so.
I am making the same appeal to them and I challenge them.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


David Réal Caouette: How interesting it is to hear a Conservative member talk about filibuster, although for six months those same Conservatives have been filibustering against the adoption of a distinctive national flag.
Mr. Speaker, the first and main reason why the government and the opposition are asking for the recognition of the union jack is because during the 1914-18 and the 1939-45 wars, many Canadians served for and on behalf of the union jack or the red ensign.
Mr. Speaker, under such circumstances it would have been preferable for the government not to give a flag to veterans, but rather to introduce legislation giving them pensions and the right to lead a decent life

in their country, Canada, for which they fought.
Mr. Speaker, there are also the widows of veterans. Hundreds of them write to us in this House of Commons asking that their pensions be increased and imploring the passing of legislation which would enable them to lead a decent life in their country, Canada.
Mr. Speaker, instead of offering them decent pensions, instead of coming to grips with this problem, the lot of our veterans, those people who served Canada under various flags, the union jack or the red ensign, instead of passing legislation enabling them to live, we are arguing in this House of Commons whether we should give them a flag called the red ensign or the union jack.
The colour of the flag matters little to a veteran, to a 65 or a 70 year old man, to a 50 or 55 year old man, to a veteran of world war I or II if they are starving in Canada.
We have seen ministers under the Mackenzie King government deliver speeches in Europe to our young people and tell them: "Young Canadians, fight with bravery and courage and when you return to your country you will never experience a depression or unemployment and you will never be considered outcasts."
Mr. Speaker, I feel that veterans or their widows are now treated like outcasts or second class citizens in the country for which they fought on two occasions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member, because it seems to me that his remarks are not relevant to the subject matter, which is concurrence in the seventh and last report of the special committee of the Canadian flag.
In my opinion, the study of the economic situation in some sectors of our population is not directly connected with this question and I ask the hon. member to make sure his remarks are relevant.


David Réal Caouette: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to order.
However, I would like to submit most humbly that since the discussion on the seventh report on a second flag for Canada, Liberals and Conservatives in turn have told us this was a national emblem which would respect and represent those who served Canada on the occasion of both world wars.
Canadian Commonwealth Flag
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe sincerely that my remarks are quite within the ambit of the question of a second flag which the government wants us to adopt.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not say more on this point, because all the hon. members who served during any of the world wars are well aware of the problem we raise at this time about the veterans of any of those two wars, their widows and their families.
Mr. Speaker, during the flag debate we heard the Liberals say that we needed a distinctive national flag and later the Conservatives repeated that we needed only one distinctive national flag. The representatives of both old line parties contradicted themselves within a few weeks. We heard the Liberals, not only from Quebec but from elsewhere, tell us that one distinctive national flag was enough. I hope that there will be a vote shortly, because this will indicate clearly, not only to the people in the province of Quebec but also to those in the rest of the country, how much sincerity or honesty the Liberals and the Conservatives have toward the Canadian voters.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard Conservative members, including the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) oppose the adoption of a second flag for Canada. I congratulate them. They represent a sector of the Canadian people that must be taken into consideration and is entitled to its opinion.
The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) a while ago moved that the house revert to the previous question, under standing order 51, to cut down the discussion on the adoption of a second flag. He went about it the wrong way, because we shall have to vote on the previous question motion and then on the main motion, that is, on resolution 44(B), in order to decide whether or not the union jack should be adopted as Canada's second flag to show our allegiance to the British commonwealth of nations.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the way to cut the debate short. It is rather a good way to extend it. Surely the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency was wrong when he moved his motion on the previous question according to standing order 51. We shall vote against the previous question motion and then against the main motion intended to give Canada a second flag, whereas we had enough of one, that is the distinctive national flag we adopted just two days ago.

Canadian Commonwealth Flag


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for very long during this debate, but I do wish to ask for some consideration about something in which I think that hon. members of this house should exercise justice.
In the next few minutes we are going to be asked to vote for the establishment of a second flag for Canada. I am much like many of those French Canadian members who are so very proud of their heritage and because they have been here for such a long time. I think I have been generous in allowing them to express their opinions. I have been very interested in listening to their opinions and their statements regarding their positions about the establishment of a new flag for Canada. This flag will give them the right to be proud of the development of Canada. It is a flag which they feel has no ties with any other country or with the past.
It is true that they look at our past in a little different way than I do, but it is safe for me to say that I too as an English speaking Canadian am interested in the establishment of only one flag for Canada. I honestly believe that that is the feeling of every member of this house.
The plea made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in this house not long ago was made with some passion. I cannot agree with the position taken by the Prime Minister in introducing his plea, but I think he was sincere in that regard and I have no reason to doubt that sincerity.
Perhaps the French speaking members of this house will be fair with me as an English speaking Canadian. I have had difficulties in my riding over this flag issue as a result of the fact that a number of people who have come from the British Isles live in that riding. I am sure those difficulties have been experienced by other members who represent predominantly English speaking provinces or ridings. If we are to have two flags, one with some heritage attached to it and a new one without any historical significance, there will continue to be a conflict in many areas, particularly having adopted the red ensign a number of years ago. I think we should make sure that all Canadians have a flag that can be considered by everyone as the flag of Canada.
Surely there is no one French Canadian member in this house who would voluntarily fly the union jack, and if I am wrong in that feeling those members should have stood in
[Mr. Caouette.l

their places and given some indication of that feeling. At least 25 or 30 per cent of the people living in my riding are French speaking and I have not yet heard any of them express a desire to fly the union jack. I plead with the French Canadian members of this house at this time to refrain from confusing me as an English speaking Canadian about this problem which I have faced for many years. If we adopt a second flag for Canada the English speaking Canadians will in effect have two flags, while the French speaking Canadians will only have one, and we will not have solved the problem which I hope will be solved by the adoption of the one flag which I believe will provide all Canadians with a flag of which they can be proud.
I know there is a hardship in this regard as far as some members are concerned who have made commitments to their political parties, and who are being forced to vote against the wishes of their own constituents. It is important to me as an English speaking Canadian to have one flag which will symbolize our unity. I believe that French Canadians have now been given a flag which they can support, and I hope they will give that same right of support to English speaking Canadians by refraining from adopting a second flag which can only create conflict.
My plea is made with as much sincerity as the Prime Minister's plea of several days ago. Surely we are all in support of the position taken by the Prime Minister when he made a plea in this house that we all support one flag, and that we all get behind it with as much loyalty as possible. I make a similar plea to the members of this house, particularly the French speaking members, to give me as an English speaking Canadian an opportunity to believe in the unity of Canada under one flag, so that we all, English and French speaking can say: This is my flag because I am a Canadian.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether it would be agreeable to not see the clock for a short period of time so that we can have the vote tonight?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before we agree, perhaps the house leader might set a time limit on this in order that we will not be here until four o'clock in the morning. These open-ended agreements invariably run into difficulty. No one is able to predict the extent of the participation by hon. members of the house in a debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps we could have an indication as to how many more members wish to speak so that we can set some time limit.


George James McIlraith: I believe there are one or
two members who wish to speak, but it is my information that the speeches will be very short. If they will give some indication as to how much time they require I am agreeable to setting a definite limit.


Douglas Mason Fisher: How about 10.15?


George James McIlraith: Would eleven o'clock be agreeable?


Frank Howard: I think 10.15 would be much more agreeable.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps there would not be enough time if we agreed on rising at 10.15. Perhaps 10.30 would be agreeable.


An hon. Member:: Sold.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Perhaps we should allow the Minister of Agriculture to run this raffle.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be agreement on 10.30.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the next speakers are being asked to be rather brief, whereas for the past two or three months, or more exactly for the past seven months, we have been asked to adopt flags. In the last minutes of this debate, we are being rushed so that a second distinctive flag might be adopted.
As previous speakers have pointed out, we already have a national flag, and the problem facing us at present is to select a second flag.
I did not have the opportunity, or at least I did not avail myself of the opportunity to speak about the first flag, because I fully endorsed the resolution. When it was time to vote, I showed that I was in favour of a distinctive national flag, like all other members of my group.
But after listening to all the marathon speeches made in this house about those two proposed flags, I feel entitled to make a few remarks tonight.
The other night the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made a pathetic appeal about our national flag, saying that we should be proud of it, rally around it, that we should be happy to adopt a national flag liable to favour unity.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that if our national flag was a source of unity, as I be-
Canadian Commonwealth Flag lieved at first, the resolution on the second Canadian flag, which will be put to a vote in a few moments, will be as great a source of division as the single leaf flag can be.
At this stage I ought to thank the Speaker who, when the resolution was introduced, was kind and gracious enough to separate it into two parts so that we may vote according to our conscience and more freely.
I wish to congratulate the English speaking Canadians who took part in this discussion this afternoon, and among others, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who, with several of his colleagues, approved the single leaf flag and now favour but one distinctive national flag with a view to promoting Canadian unity.
Mr. Speaker, like many other members, I am now asking the Liberal members of the province of Quebec to rally around the single maple leaf flag, because they are the ones who will now give us a second flag, which, in future, will divide this country, because the second flag which we will adopt tonight will give rise to more separatism in the province of Quebec and in other provinces. In fact, this flag will cause disunity.
As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) so aptly said: Which of the two flags will have precedence? The single leaf flag in the province of Quebec, and the union jack in Newfoundland? Why? Because the hon. premier of Newfoundland stated that whatever distinctive flag was chosen, only one flag would be recognized, or flown, in Newfoundland: The union jack.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we are living at this time a very significant moment in the last minutes of this long debate, perhaps the longest since confederation, on a most important matter.
Our distinctive national flag is an instrument of unity, of mutual understanding. As to the second flag on which you will vote tonight-and the Liberals will be held responsible for it-it may well favour and spread separatism in the province of Quebec and in the rest of this country.
As for me, like my colleagues, I shall vote against a second flag.
And once again I must congratulate the English speaking members who have rallied around the maple leaf flag and who do not want to recognize a second flag.
To them, I say that I look upon them as patriots. But to the Liberal members who were asking us to rally around the maple leaf flag and who may, in a few moments, vote for a second flag indicating our allegiance

Canadian Commonwealth Flag to the crown, I say this: You will be voting for a second flag which is not ours, a flag which belongs to England. I also tell them that I am anxious to know their names, because in the province of Quebec they are not looked upon as patriots but as flag-wavers who, unfortunately, say a lot and do not have any principles when it is time to vote.
Mr. Speaker, we respect the union jack and what it stands for. We have already said so in this house; but the union jack is not our flag. Why a second resolution, if they were so keen on a distinctive flag? It is a two-faced "gimmick", and I think the Liberal government, under the circumstances, tried to please everyone.
The government should have remembered the words of the famous French fabulist who said it was impossible to please everyone and one's father. In these circumstances an attempt was made to satisfy not only everyone and one's father, but also one's mother-in-law.
That is why I say the Liberals, under the circumstances, not only did not please everyone, but they displeased everyone, for they failed to assume their responsibilities with regard to the problem at hand, namely that of adopting only one distinctive flag.
Under such circumstances, perhaps we will not be in a better situation in six months than we were before losing so much time in adopting a flag, because what we are doing tonight will probably be a cause for disunion, disagreement and even quarrels throughout Canada, because it is not known which of the two flags will be the official emblem.
Which of the two flags will we fly on certain occasions? We are told that that will be left to everybody's discretion.
I suggest that when you leave such an important matter to the discretion of everyone and anyone, that is likely to create dissension in Canada, and the Liberal party will bear the entire responsibility for it, for I am not ready to accept the union jack as the flag to fly in Canada's ten provinces.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Mr. Marcoux moved that the question be now put.
[Translation1


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house, and seeing I have been assured no amendment will be introduced later, I am willing to withdraw my motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as we had no
intention of moving an amendment, we accept the withdrawal just made by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Bruce Silas Beer: My Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion. 20220-714
Business of the House IMMIGRATION



ONOFRIO MINAUDO AND GIUSEPPE CATALONOTTE-TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE

René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, in order to complete answers to questions Nos. 2,537 and 2,538 given yesterday, I should like to table copies of the correspondence exchanged between the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and any individual, including members of parliament and people writing in their names, about the deportation of Onofrio Minaudo and Giuseppe Catalonotte.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre not intend to ask what tomorrow's business will be? If not, I shall ask it on his behalf.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member does not need to ask it on my behalf. The leader of the house arranged with me a month ago that he would announce the business of the house without anyone asking him from this side of the house.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is quite correct. I am afraid that in my feeling of relief that a rather long debate had come to an end on a good note I overlooked doing what I ought to have done.


Thomas Miller Bell: You are still a good house leader.


George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we propose to submit to the house for its consideration the opting out resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance; the labour standards bill; the C.N.R. financing bill; the combines legislation amendment; the Judges Act amendment; the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act amendment; and the resolution and legislation on the Coal Production Assistance Act amendment-


Thomas Miller Bell: I take back what I said.


George James McIlraith: -the insurance legislation amendments, the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act amendment; and the resolutions ratifying trade agreements between Canada and Hungary, Canada and the U.S.S.R., and Canada and Bulgaria.

Business of the House I may add that the items I have mentioned will not necessarily be dealt with in the order I have given.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the last words of the government house leader to the effect that these various items would not necessarily be dealt with in the order given, may I ask whether the second item he mentioned, namely the Canada labour code measure, will be on the list tomorrow, in view of the government's promise to deal with this matter before Christmas?


George James McIlraith: The only item to which I can really give priority is the opting out resolution.


An hon. Member:: Welching again.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask whether it is the intention of the leader of the house that we should adjourn the session tomorrow night at six o'clock?


George James McIlraith: That is our hope.


[Stage Direction]
It being forty five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 18, 1964
The house met at 11 a.m.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to present the recommendations of the joint committee on the library of parliament concerning rates of payment to professional employees of the library.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the joint committee on the library of parliament tabled this day be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of special committee on food and drugs-Mr. Harley.
Second report of standing committee on mines, forests and waters-Mr. Godin.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, acting for the special committee on procedure and organization I move-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether at this point I could raise a point of order to put something before the house. The hon. member is about to move concurrence in a very important report of the special committee on procedure and organization which was presented to the house on December 14.
Hon. members will have noticed that this is the most important report that has come from the committee; and I say that with all deference to the other reports that have come from the committee. It raises very important matters which are basic to the whole procedure under which we operate in the house. It is the kind of report that is deserving of full debate and discussion in the chamber.
I think all hon. members will agree that there is need for examination of the rules with a view to their improvement, and that this report does deal with some of the basic, needed improvements. I for one, and the government, have not had an opportunity of studying this report thoroughly and in a proper way. We would like to have more opportunity to study it, and indeed have made some preliminary arrangements for doing that during the recess.
In the light of what I have said, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the hon. member would consider not moving concurrence today. I am led to believe, from conversation with some members of the committee, that the hon. member may feel he is obligated to move concurrence because of some proceeding in the committee, namely that he may have given a commitment that he would move concurrence in this report before the house recessed. But I would appeal to committee members, if any such commitment was given, to release the hon. member from that commitment. I wonder whether it would meet the wishes of the house if we were to let this very important matter stand over, in the hope and expectation that when we reconvene for the latter part of the session we could give it priority for the thorough discussion which it deserves.
Right Hon, J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has put forward clearly and concisely very cogent arguments in support of the suggestion of the government that this report, revolutionary as it is in certain portions, deserves the fullest consideration. The President of the Privy Council has said that sufficient opportunity has not been available to the government to give that type of consideration to all the implications that are inherent in the report. I think this suggestion is one that deserves the support of the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that has been raised by the President of the Privy Council, I would like to say that I appreciate the remarks he has made, but I also believe that if the members of this house are going to consider this report during the recess and come back to the session some time after the new year, there are at least some

Procedure and Organization words of explanation due to hon. members respecting the considerations of the committee when compiling this report. I would be agreeable to having the report stand until a later date, but I do think it would be useful to hon. members, particularly to members of the government, if some explanation could be given at this time; then the report could stand and we would not proceed to the point where we had concurrence.


George James McIlraith: Do I understand the hon. member's remarks to mean that he would make his speech moving the motion for concurrence in the committee report and then have the debate adjourned at that point in the proceedings? I believe that would be agreeable if that is what he intends to ask for.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is only right that the Chair should declare its personal interest in this matter. It has been moved by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), seconded by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker):
That the fifteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization presented to the house on December 14, 1964 be now concurred in.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I had a very detailed explanation prepared for the house this morning, but I will be as brief as possible in keeping with the desire to give members of this house at least some explanation of the background to the preparation of this fifteenth report.
I want to say at the outset that concurrence by this house would not necessarily give effect to the recommended changes in standing orders and all the other necessary changes in procedure in this house to the point where all the suggestions which have been made would be effected. It would simply give the blessing of this house to the new committee structure which is proposed by the fifteenth report. I think it is obvious from reading the report, from the language which is used and from the nature of the recommendations which are made that it would require changes in standing orders as well as other changes which could not in fact be made without legislation being passed.
In commencing my remarks may I point out to hon. members that they can find the complete report printed in Votes and Proceedings No. 210 for Monday, December 14 last. I also want to express appreciation to the members of the subcommittee who worked for many weeks preparing this report, including the hon. members for York Centre (Mr. Walker), North-

umberland (Miss Jewett), Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Royal (Mr. Fair-weather), Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). I should also like to express appreciation to Mr. Laundy, Mr. Carty and Mr. Kirby, who prepared a number of special studies for the consideration of the committee.
This subcommittee was established on August 26 of this year and its term of reference was simply "Committees". It was authorized to consider all questions and problems relating to the committee structure of this House of Commons. In the opinion of the full committee this subject was of such importance and magnitude as to justify the appointment of a fourth subcommittee with this single area of investigation as its terms of reference.
For your information, Mr. Speaker, the subcommittee held a large number of meetings. They wrote and redrafted the report several times. In addition, it was brought before the whole committee on procedure and organization three times and was appropriately amended after the discussion on each occasion.
When members study this report and give consideration to the effect it would have on the proceedings of this house, I should like them to bear in mind that our major attention was directed toward that duty of the house of dealing with the estimates and expenditures of the federal government. We did a great deal of work in considering what could and should be done by the standing committees of this house in respect of bills and other legislation, but we decided that we could not complete a study and make the necessary recommendations concerning the procedure for consideration of bills in the committees. So when considering this report I hope hon. members will bear in mind that the emphasis was placed on the consideration of estimates.
In Votes and Proceedings No. 164 of Wednesday, October 7 there appears a list of 14 special studies that were authorized for and on behalf of the subcommittees. Rather than read the list into the record again perhaps permission could be granted to have this list printed in Hansard along with this explanation. All these studies will be available to members so they may consider some of the background the subcommittee used in arriving at the recommendations it has made.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give Consent to the suggestion of the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[Editor's note: The list referred, to above is as follows:]
Documents of the Fourth Subcommittee
(a)	Some features of interest in the procedures and organization of the British House of Commons (Mr. George Carty).
(b)	Some features of interest in the procedures and organization of the French parliament (Mr. George Carty).
(c)	The committee structure of the House of Commons at Westminster (Mr. Philip Laundy).
(d)	The committee structure of the French national assembly (Mr. Philip Laundy).
(e)	Reform of parliamentary committees (Mr. Robert Armstrong).
(f)	The committee structure of the congress of the United States (Mr. Michael Kirby i.
(g)	Classification of committees in the Canadian House of Commons (Mr. Michael Kirby).
(h)	Nominal lists of parliamentary and congressional committees in the legislatures of Canada, Great Britain, France, and the United States (Mr. Michael Kirby).
(i)	Some features of interest in the procedures and organization in the legislative assembly of the state of Victoria (Mr. C. B. S. Dobson).
(j)	Some features of interest in the procedures and organization in the legislative assembly of the state of New South Wales (Mr. C. B. S. Dobson).
(k)	Statistical data prepared by the committees and private legislation branch of the House of Commons.
(l)	List of suggestions for parliamentary reform made by party leaders and other members of the House of Commons.
(m)	Some features of interest in the procedures and organization in the parliaments of Australia and New Zealand (Mr. Robert Thompson).
(n)	Summary of Mr. Lambert's impressions of his visit to certain legislatures in western Europe.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Essentially the report provides that all the main estimates, when they are tabled in this house by the minister of finance, shall automatically be referred to the appropriate standing committee. In this regard we have set up nine new committees, if you want to call them that, or renamed the committees, with at least one designated to consider each part of the estimates tabled in this house.
Some consideration was given to the physical limitations of the number of committees which would be meeting concurrently or simultaneously. There was also some consideration given by the fourth subcommittee to the suggestion that we adjourn every Wednesday while parliament is in session, setting it aside for the exclusive consideration of estimates by the committees. Consideration was given to a number of other ways by which we could give more and greater attention to the consideration of estimates.
One of the points which required a great deal of consideration by the members related
Procedure dnd Organization to the designation of committees. We considered names for these new committees very carefully, and I am sure there will be some objection to the names suggested. We even considered simply numbering a large number of standing committees rather than giving them names, because of the connotations which might be placed on particular names. For instance, in the matter of the Department of Labour and the designation of a special committee, there was no disagreement that this was a tremendously important department, of sufficient importance that it warrants a standing committee by itself. That also applies to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In relation to the Department of Veterans Affairs, when considering matters which come within that designation we had to bear in mind that many things would have to be sent to the committee when considering the estimates. We felt that at this time the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned largely with veterans hospitals, pensions and things of that sort. Certainly the same committee which considered the Department of National Health and Welfare estimates would also be concerned with pensions and hospitalization. Therefore we put the Department of Veterans Affairs in with the Department of National Defence. It was moved out once, moved back in and moved out again.
We have included the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs in one of the nine committees. There can be no argument that each of these departments is large enough to warrant a committee, but in the consolidation of the standing committees it was necessary to reduce their number and try to find some common ground or at least some common area of interest in assigning the various departments to the committees. By the way, Mr. Speaker, appendix "B" to the fifteenth report does in fact give the detailed assignment to committees of all the departments and agencies of the government. We do not regard this assignment as perfect, but after a great deal of consideration we thought this was probably the best we could do at the time in grouping those areas where there is some common interest.
In going through the report, Mr. Speaker, you will see that there is an introduction in the first six paragraphs. We say in part by way of introduction that we recognize that

Procedure and Organization the committees branch of the House of Commons must become the subject matter of a thorough investigation to make sure first of all that they are able to cope with the provision of rooms, staff, and all the other facilities these committees will need. I might say at this point that some members of the subcommittee felt that consideration of the estimates should have been consolidated even more so far as the number of committees is concerned. We are down to nine committees, but some of us felt that the number should be reduced to six because of the physical limitations involved in having six committees meeting simultaneously.
There is the matter of reporters in both English and French, the question of simultaneous translation and all the other facilities these committees will require. Having in mind the overriding consideration that we wanted to have the estimates referred to committees, we had to try to reach some kind of compromise so that in fact the committees could meet and be properly staffed. There is also the problem of having the committee proceedings printed and available to members. Therefore it seems to me we have to recognize that there are physical limitations.
We think that at the present time it would be difficult for more than three or four committees to meet simultaneously, but during those periods when the house would stand adjourned there would be additional staff who would be released from their reporting and translating duties in the House of Commons who would be available to the committees branch. Therefore it would perhaps be possible for four or five committees to meet at the same time and still do all those things that are necessary.
With regard to joint committees, members are well aware that at the present time there are several joint committees with the other place which primarily consider shared services such as the restaurant, library and so on. We believe that one joint committee could deal with all of these shared services. We also recommend, of course, another joint committee on statute law review and consolidation, which is a new departure. I am not going to take the time today to explain that particular committee. I want to go through the report very quickly.
We recommend that the size of committees be reduced substantially. In fact your committee recommends that no standing committee shall consist of less than 15 or more than 30 members. Members will be aware, of course, that at the present time some of the


standing committees have as many as 60 members. We recommend that the quorum of all these committees shall be a majority of the membership. In other words, for a committee of 30 members the quorum would be 16, and for a committee with 15 members it would be eight.
We also recommend that at the outset, when the committees are struck and the membership is named, there should be alternate members named so that we would not have to come back to the house repeatedly for the substitution of names. Therefore if any member who is assigned to a committee is unable to attend it would be his responsibility to get in touch with his alternate to see that he should attend.
We also recommend that a chairmen's panel be set up consisting of the Deputy Speaker of the house as chairman and the chairmen of all the other standing committees as members. The purpose of this is so there can be some co-ordination of the activities of all the standing committees. At present there is at times some difficulty within the committees branch in finding accommodation and staff, and we think this could be overcome to a large extent if there were a chairmen's panel which would make the decisions as to when committees would meet or, if that could not be done, at least co-ordinate their thinking so there would not be this difficulty in finding accommodation.
Paragraph 23 of the report sets out that we should adjourn the house for a period of two weeks after three weeks of sitting, and that would come into effect after the main estimates have been tabled in the house. There are nine standing committees on estimates and legislation. We considered this number very carefully, and we believed it would be physically impossible for nine committees to meet concurrently without a lot of confusion developing. Therefore we recommend that half, or about half-that is four of these estimates standing committees-meet during one week of the two week adjournment and that the other four or five, whatever the case may be, meet during the second week of the two week adjournment. We recommend that this be continued throughout the session; that the house shall sit for three weeks and then stand adjourned for two weeks while the legislation and estimates committees would have the exclusive attention of hon. members.
We further recommend that the members be required to attend these meetings of the committees to which they have been ap-

pointed, and that standing order No. 5 be amended by the addition of the words "and its committees" after the word "house" where this occurs. At present members are required to attend the sessions of the house, but when a session stands adjourned their attendance is not obligatory. We think this obligation should be invoked also with regard to attendance at committees.
In paragraph 28 we recommend that the main estimates of expenditure should automatically be referred to the appropriate standing committees when they are tabled in the house.
Paragraph 29 recommends that there be no more than 20 days set aside for debating the main estimates in committee of the whole. We think the details of all the expenditures would be delved into deeply in the committees, and that a maximum of 20 days is sufficient for debating them in the house. This would, of course, prevent interminable repetition of the debate which took place in any committee.
Paragraph 30 contains a very important point that requires some explanation, because it deals with the six supply motions that are required under the present standing orders. At present these six supply motions are required in order to refer estimates to the committee of the whole, but if all the estimates when they are tabled automatically stand referred to the appropriate committees, it would appear there would no longer be any need for these six supply motions.
At the same time we recognize that there ought to be a number of debates during the course of a session on which the opposition would have the right to select the subject matter and move motions of no confidence if they wished to do so. Though we have not provided for what should be done to retain this right of the opposition we do not believe these opportunities should be abolished, even though they would not be required to enter estimates. We recognize that additional study needs to be done to provide for retaining this procedure and at the same time tidying it up so that it will not necessarily be called a supply motion.
There are a number of other suggestions, such as that these supply motions would still be required in order to vote the funds when the report of an estimates committee came back to the house and, as I pointed out, there was no intention on the part of the subcommittee to do away with such opportunities because it is necessary that the opposition
Procedure and Organization select the subject matter of a limited debate. One other consideration which is not contained in the report is that possibly the first two days, the Monday and Tuesday after the house reconvenes following an adjournment period, would be an opportune time for the presenting of motions of no confidence.
Paragraph 31 simply exempts the Speaker's estimates, the Governor General's estimates and the privy council estimates from going to the standing committees, because we think these are of unique importance to members in the chamber and therefore should be considered in committee of the whole.
At present I am not going to go into a lot more detail, but I think members of the house should know these things and the considerations which gave rise to the recommendations.
Taking all the recommendations that are in the fifteenth report and putting them together with the recommendations made in the eleventh report, which dealt with the matter of committees being set up at the beginning of each parliament rather than at the beginning of each session, in our opinion they will make a tremendous improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of parliament.
I should now like to read excerpts from two or three press reports which appeared since the committee's report was tabled last Monday, in order to indicate that there appears to be almost unanimous support in editorial comment across the country for the recommendations of the committee. For example, the Montreal Star on December 16 said:
Where there has been failure it has often lain in outmoded procedure and rules rather than individuals. These rules have been under scrutiny for many months. An all-party committee of the house has worked with astonishing unanimity to change and streamline procedures.
The Ottawa Citizen on December 16 said:
The best thing about the report is that it proposes a thorough and rational study of government estimates, thus suggesting a more effective check on spending while restoring to the private member his ancient control over the public money. A job that needs to be done would be given to a group of people-the backbenchers of all parties__
The Toronto Telegram of December 16 said:
This week the Commons committee on procedure and organization made some recommendations which give hope for a revival of respect among the people's elected representatives. This is indispensable, for without it the nation's respect for parliament cannot easily be nursed back to health.

NATO Ministerial Meeting
It goes on to say:
The recommendations offer a sensible way to entrust important segments of a mounting work load to keen scrutiny in committee without weakening the basic authority of the Commons as a whole.
There is much more I could read into the record, but I promised to be brief. I make an appeal to members of the house to study this report in detail over the recess period, and to give consideration to giving it their support, at least on a trial basis, so that we can restore, if one wants to put it that way, some order to the tremendous load of business being transacted by the house at present.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Baldwin, seconded by Mr. Knowles, moves that the said debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I should like to make a brief statement to the house on the NATO ministerial meeting which the Minister of National Defence and I have just attended in Paris. I should like to table copies in English and in French of the communique which was issued at the close of the meeting. As is usual, perhaps this could be made an appendix to today's record.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This was a useful and encouraging meeting. In fact I think it was the most useful of the four which I have attended, for we discussed matters which are at the heart of the alliance in a spirit of candor and tolerance. As so often happens, the meeting was preceded by reports of crisis, but an alliance which can discuss its difficulties in the spirit I have described is strong and healthy.
That differences exist is of course well known, and this is particularly the case with regard to the nuclear arrangements of the alliance. I went to the meeting with the strong belief that the various proposals that had been made for nuclear arrangements should continue to be discussed in the NATO forum and that no decisions on these important questions should be taken without full consultation in NATO. During the meeting I expressed this belief, which was shared by others, and paragraph 8 of the communique reflects this view.


I should like to make quite clear that in urging NATO discussion of these issues, we are not aligning ourselves for or against any other member of the alliance. What we are doing is seeking a way to reinforce the unity of the alliance. It is for this reason that the Canadian government has consistently maintained that any new arrangements must be related to the essential purposes of NATO.
We also discussed Cyprus in a restricted meeting of ministers. We were given a report from the secretary general which covered the conscientious efforts which he and his predecessor, Mr. Stikker, had made under the watching brief entrusted to them to try to bring Greece and Turkey together. Without the intervention of the NATO secretary general the dangers arising from the tension between Greece and Turkey and the threat to the stability of the southeastern flank of NATO might well have increased.
After hearing statements from the foreign ministers of Greece and Turkey, I appealed to the sense of responsibility of the two governments and urged them to do all they could to exert a moderating influence on the two communities in Cyprus. I reiterated the need for renewed efforts to reach agreement on a negotiated settlement. I also urged that restraint on the part of the governments of Greece and Turkey could be an even more influential factor than the activities of the NATO secretary general. It was of course understood that the watching brief of the NATO secretary general which the council reviewed should continue to be in support of the mediatory and peace keeping role of the United Nations. That role is of primary interest to Canada as a contributor to the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus.
I may say that the government expects to receive a request from the secretary general of the United Nations today to agree to a renewal of Canadian participation in the United Nations force for a further period of three months, and that the Canadian permanent representative to the United Nations will be authorized to convey the government's agreement to this request.
It has been the Canadian view for some time past that if NATO is to continue as a dynamic alliance, its members must consider carefully the kind of alliance most suited to their national needs and to conditions in the future. The importance of examining the alliance's future was recognized at The Hague meeting, where ministers had their first exchange of views on this subject. At this recent meeting I advanced the view that there should

be a study of the state of the alliance and the commonly accepted purposes and principles of NATO, to be undertaken in the first instance by the permanent council. I am pleased to be able to report that this view finds clear expression in paragraph 4 of the communique.
We believe the unity of the alliance is best served by using to the fullest possible extent the machinery of consultation which NATO provides. It was with this aim in view that, as I have just mentioned, we advocated a full and continuous examination of the state of the alliance and of its purposes and objectives.
I cannot recall a more searching discussion at any of these meetings. We did not evade the problems of the alliance, even the United States and British proposals for multilateral defence arrangements. We heard and welcomed in unmistakable terms assurances of mutual confidence and co-operation based on a unanimous recognition of the fact that at least as long as the threat of agression in a divided Europe continues, the need for the alliance remains as compelling as ever.
While NATO has survived successive crises, I hasten to add that I found no state of crisis in the alliance but a healthy recognition of the perplexing problems of the international scene and a desire to come to grips with them.
I had talks with the French foreign minister which were part of a series in the ministerial consultations between Canada and France begun last January at the time the Prime Minister and I visited General de Gaulle and members of the French government. I had an extensive conversation in this connection on December 13 with Mr. Couve de Murville at the Quai d'Orsay. The French foreign minister and I exchanged views on a number of NATO issues and reviewed several subjects of current interest to both our countries, including defence.
Finally, I took the opportunity on December 14 to attend the opening of the new consulate general of Canada at Bordeaux. This marks a further significant stage in the rapidly broadening relations between France and Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: First I want to say to the minister that he has given to the house a general review, but he has not touched on certain matters which I would have thought he would deal with.
When he speaks of the necessity of preserving the NATO alliance, that sentiment would, of course, receive the entire support
NATO Ministerial Meeting of the members of this house. The hon. gentleman stated that the NATO alliance showed no sign of weakening. That is not the information which is daily being received through the press, over the radio and through other media of information. Indeed, for the past several months these sources have indicated a loosening of those ties in NATO.
One of the main purposes of the meeting,
I would think, would have been to bring about a more general agreement in respect to those things which are essential to the preservation and strengthening of NATO. It has always been the case that an alliance defensive in its nature weakens when the threat of danger lessens. Certainly in the last year, in any event, the communist threat as posed by the U.S.S.R. has, in the public mind, diminished and in consequence those things that hold the nations together in NATO tend to weaken.
The minister had advised the house that Canada will be receiving an invitation today from the secretary general to provide for a further three months of peace keeping in Cyprus, and he has informed the house that the stand of the government will be the acceptance of the request. I would have liked to hear the minister place before the house and the country the representations he made regarding the most unfair responsibility which rests on Canada of providing the entire cost of Canada's contribution to that peace force. Why should Canada be placed in the position of having to bear the entire cost of doing an international work? We have spoken of this on more than one occasion. Apparently, however, the minister did not deal therewith or place before the NATO countries the need of a reasonable degree of equality of sacrifice among the nations in the preservation of the UN force and the maintenance of that peace force.
On the question of the nuclear deterrent we received little or no information from the minister. I can understand his difficulty, because this government in its policy in this regard has followed a course of uncertainty and vacillation. We have seen evidence of that over and over again in the last 19 months, namely that the views expressed' by the members of the present government, when they were in opposition, regarding a nuclear deterrent and the like have been forgotten or in any event denuded in the experience of carrying them into effect.
Then there was reported in the press a statement made by the minister regarding

NATO Ministerial Meeting Canada's attitude to France. That was a most unusual statement and one that deserves to be debated in this house. I do not have it before me, but in summary it was that Canada had given its assurance to General de Gaulle that in any course of action that might be taken in NATO, Canada would do nothing that would run contrary to the course being developed by or the attitude of mind of the Republic of France.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I just point out to my hon. friend that a correction was made in regard to that report. I saw the report, and the next day I made a correction of it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, these corrections do not seem to catch up with the ebullient declarations of the hon. gentleman. He held a press conference; he expressed himself; he had with him a host of pressmen; and each and every one, press, radio and t.v., reported the statement allegedly made by the minister. It is one that needs to be clarified, for what it amounted to-and it was so interpreted-was that he, on behalf of Canada, had made a declaration that regardless of the attitude of the United States in its contribution to the preservation of the peace of the world through NATO, if France was in disagreement Canada would follow the lead of France.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is something that is not realistic and cannot, as I see it, be accepted by the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says he corrected it. Well, Mr. Speaker, the place to correct it and say what he in fact did say is in the House of Commons, so that the misunderstanding that was created, if such indeed took place, would be removed and obliterated. But, as it is, all the pressmen, radio and t.v. reporters took the same view and made the same interpretation of the words used by the minister when in Paris. There was no exception. We in this house have the right to know what is the attitude of the government of Canada in relation to the views being expressed by General de Gaulle, and above all France, which so often do not coincide with the views of the other members of this great alliance.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs


I would like to confine myself to three brief points. The first is that, as is usual, the communique from the NATO council is vague and reassuring in its terms; it papers over the very real problems and difficulties that exist. I regret that we are not able to hear from the minister a clearer statement of where Canada stands on the problem of the control of nuclear weapons and the further dissemination of nuclear weapons.
The second point I would like to make is this. We regret that there appears to be nothing in the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to indicate that Canada has now initiated the renegotiation of her role in the area of tactical nuclear weapons, which was promised by the government before the election; I believe by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We regret there is no indication that this point was raised by Canada, and that this renegotiation of Canada's role-long overdue, in our opinion- has now begun.
Third, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we do welcome the indication in the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada will accept the invitation of the secretary general of the United Nations to continue her peace keeping role in Cyprus. We believe that Canada should do this, notwithstanding the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition that it is perhaps an unfair financial burden to put upon Canada. We think that financial burden is small compared with the tremendous constructive value of Canada's contribution to the peace keeping force in Cyprus, and we hope that notwithstanding any difficulties and feelings-and they are natural-such as the Leader of the Opposition has expressed, Canada will continue to accept this very important responsibility.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in attempting to be as brief as possible I would say that we welcome the summary report given to us by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the recent NATO conference in Paris. I believe we all agree that the record of NATO has been tremendous; it has accomplished far more than was originally expected. I believe that, in spite of the difficulties which are being faced today, there is a very urgent need and a very definite role for NATO in world affairs.
It is obvious that the most important work at this conference was done not so much in the formal meetings that were held but in the discussions and direct contacts among

various representatives of the different nations. From what we have read and from what has been said this morning, I would think Canada's delegation played a very important role in this regard.
Obviously there is some satisfaction to be taken from what was accomplished in spite of the fact that there is a great deal of insecurity and certainly indefiniteness about just what is going to be the future role of NATO. I think no single matter is more important than the question of whether there is going to be a nuclear deterrent in the hands of NATO. I am sure the decision of the British parliament yesterday, namely to support the government's recognition of an Atlantic nuclear force in place of what has been suggested by the United States, is of extreme importance, and I would have appreciated it if the minister had said more about that matter. Obviously there is a great deal yet to be done in relation to what action is going to be taken through NATO as it relates to the nuclear deterrent in Europe.
We welcome the statement which has been made about Cyprus. 1 think it is important that Canada continue her peace keeping role there, and I would hope that in this apparent lull in active hostilities some definite plan is being worked out for that island in the unfortunate situation in which it finds itself at the present time. Certainly a peace force such as there is now, is essential, but this arrangement cannot go on indefinitely, and I trust that everything is being done which can be done toward bringing the situation to some sort of satisfactory settlement.
There is one point on which I should have liked to hear more from the minister, and it is this. I realize it does not relate directly to NATO and its sphere of influence, but it has a definite relationship to world peace. This concerns Portugal and its role in Africa. The charge is constantly made that NATO equipment is being used directly or indirectly to support a very dictatorial colonial regime in two major parts of Africa, Angola and Mozambique, and that unless this situation is settled we will never have peace in Africa. Certainly NATO does have some direct responsibility here, particularly if it is true that the assistance which is being given to a NATO member country is being used for other purposes than originally intended.
This brings up the point, Mr. Speaker, that the role of NATO is definitely changing in the changing world in which we find ourselves today. Certainly the metamorphosis and development required to meet changing condi-20220-7151
NATO Ministerial Meeting tions will result in some very definite changes in NATO. I hope when we reconvene we may have an opportunity for a full scale debate on these matters which centre around NATO, because certainly it is not only vital to the world situation but it is most important as far as Canada's role in that situation is concerned.
We note with interest the fact that another consulate general has been opened in Bordeaux, which brings up the point made by the Leader of the Opposition that Canada's developing role with France is likewise something which should be debated in this house because it concerns a very important policy regarding Canada's foreign relations.
While we realize there are many problems still facing NATO, NATO is nevertheless bigger and more important than these problems, and I think it has a very important future which will remain as important as it has in the past.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words to congratulate the minister for the report of his meetings at NATO and the discussions in which he took part, because they certainly helped the cause of peace.
I think that NATO is the right organization for trying to gather all the nations which want to unite, first of all for peace and, more particularly, for standing up to communism.
During my last journey, I had the opportunity of seeing for myself the work accomplished by those 15 countries, an experience which made me very happy indeed, because I could see that those nations who want peace, and more particularly to work for peace are able to do a great deal, even if their population is not very large, as in the case of Canada.
Yes, Canada can accomplish a great deal by joining with those war giants. What strikes us in all those discussions is to always see the mighty prevail against us. It is all very well to say that in order to protect ourselves we must get arms, but what scares me most is that all those NATO discussions aim to provide everybody with weapons, while giving bullets to only one. This is dangerous, but I know that in his speeches, the minister has surely helped to relieve this tension and this threat by emphasizing that all countries, including France, should contribute to this peace-minded organization. I wish to congratulate especially the minister for his good work.

Pensions Plan
There is only one point about which I wondered, and it is the matter of Cyprus. We are asked to leave our occupation forces in Cyprus for another three months. I understand that Canada should be asked to make further sacrifices but it seems that it is the only country that is paying all the expenses of its troops in Cyprus. Therefore, I wonder why the Canadian government does not take the necessary steps to see that our army is on an equal footing with the other troops regarding its expenses.
People overseas think that Canada is a rich country but if they came to live here they would change their minds.
I always wondered why we accepted to spend millions of dollars to pay all expenses of our armed forces in Cyprus when the other UN forces which are in that country to protect it-the same as the Canadian troops- do not have to pay their expenses.
Now, I would like to ask the minister to tell us the exact costs of our Canadian troops in Cyprus.
We should help, of course, to the keeping of peace, but we should also bear in mind that there are 15 countries in NATO and that the burden should be born equally by those 15 countries.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to communicate with the countries concerned and discuss this matter with them in order to put an end to all these expenses being paid by Canada while these other countries are only contributing a very small share.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the communique referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For communique referred to above, see appendix.]



PENSIONS


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minisler of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short statement on the procedure which the government proposes to follow as a result of the present and proposed provincial legislation relating to the portability and solvency of private pension plans.

Legislation relating to the portability and solvency of private pension plans, applicable to employment under provincial jurisdiction, has already come into force in the province of Ontario and is currently being considered by other provinces. An interprovincial conference on uniform pension legislation, to which federal government observers were invited, was held in Toronto on October 16 of this year. It was then agreed that every effort should be made to prepare a model act for consideration by the end of this month, with the hope that it could be approved by provincial authorities in time for presentation to the various provincial legislatures at their 1965 sessions.
The government has decided that as soon as there is a wide measure of agreement as to the approach to be taken by the provinces to this problem as it applies to employment under provincial jurisdiction, the government will, as a measure of co-operation with the provinces, introduce similar legislation applicable to employment in works, undertakings and businesses under the jurisdiction of parliament. Before any such legislation is introduced, however, the government will be having further discussions with the provincial authorities. In addition, the pension plans of federal government employees and employees of federal crown corporations will be amended to include similar provisions for portability.
I should like to make it clear that since both the provincial legislation and the proposed federal legislation on this subject will relate to private pension plans, there will be no conflict between it and the Canada pension plan.



CONDUCT OF CERTAIN MINISTERS-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I should like leave to move the adjournment of this house in accordance with standing order No. 26 in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the grave doubts and uncertainties which have arisen in connection with the standard of conduct and public morality of those in authority in public affairs, in particular the public admissions made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) concerning the relationships between those ministers and the Sefkind brothers of Montreal and companies associated with them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Perhaps if hon. members, particularly the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud), will wait for a moment, I will indicate the actions of those ministers which I believe to be inconsistent with the proper conduct of ministers of the crown.
Before I move the motion, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will be allowed to mention briefly the importance and urgency of this matter. As you will recall, on December 1 the hon. member for Cape Breton South placed the following question on the order paper:
Arising out of the investigation into bankruptcy frauds now in progress in Montreal, has the government secured any information showing that the records and documents connected with bankruptcy proceedings by Max and Adolph Sefkind and/or their companies disclose contributions for campaign purposes to any cabinet ministers or other members of parliament, and, if so, to whom and in what amounts?
Without going into the details, Mr. Speaker, on December 8 the Secretary of State was reported in the press as having revealed that he had dealings in the amount of some $6,800 in relation to the purchase of furniture from the now bankrupt United Upholsterers Limited. He said he had received this furniture in 1961 and in 1963, not having made a down payment or arrangements for payment, and began to make payments after receiving a demand from the trustees in bankruptcy in January, 1964.
On December 9 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was reported in the press as having volunteered similar information to news representatives. In this case the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated that deliveries of some $3,341 worth of furniture had been made to him between November 15, 1963, and January 10, 1964. He stated that he had received it under similar conditions, and that he made a final payment upon the demand of the same Bank of Montreal.
On December 9 the Prime Minister was reported in the press as having made the following statement:
1 make no statement until I have all the facts, in contrast to allegations and innuendos. When I have all the facts, I'll make any statement that is appropriate.
We do not know what further facts the Prime Minister might be waiting for, but information about this matter which is so important to parliament should be brought before parliament at this time.
As to the importance of this matter, without reading any of the many reports which have been made throughout the country, as is known to Your Honour for some time there
Ministerial Conduct
has been a great deal of speculation and an extraordinary amount of questioning in the press and over other media, t.v. and radio, having a bearing upon the propriety of the actions of the two ministers.
As to the urgency of the matter, if Your Honour will allow me, and in view of the fact that it is the last day before we adjourn for-


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what you think.


Howard Russell MacEwan: That is what the house leader stated last night. Perhaps the Prime Minister will check with his house leader.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He said he hoped, but that hope is now gone.


Howard Russell MacEwan: All right; we hope that to be the case, and this is a good time of the year to have hope. This is the time when this matter should be brought forward. I have set forth the matters of importance, as set out in the motion which I should like to move. No statements have been made in this House of Commons by the ministers concerned, which could have been made on questions of privilege. They have made voluntary statements to the press, and I suggest that is to their credit; but I believe in regard to matters of such importance, dealing with cabinet ministers in this country, the House of Commons and parliament are entitled to an explanation. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the house do now adjourn in accordance with standing order No. 26 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.
I have already set out that matter, Mr. Speaker, and I will not repeat it now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, are you going to allow discussion on this matter? On the question of urgency and the public importance of this question, Mr. Speaker, I would say first that nothing is more important than that the actions and activities of ministers of the crown shall, like Caesar's wife, be free from any suggestion of impropriety. The only explanation that has been made has consisted of statements by the two ministers, made outside the House of Commons, which, for want of a better expression, I would say had all the appearances of political upholstery of a situation that demands an explanation.


An hon. Member:: Furnish us with the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: No opportunity has been given up to the present time to ask any questions on this matter. As the hon. member for

Ministerial Conduct
Pictou has stated, the first question asked, the one as a result of which the ministers suddenly developed memories of what had taken place, was a written question by the hon. member for Cape Breton South which was answered on December 16. That question was as follows:
Arising out of the investigation into bankruptcy frauds now in progress in Montreal, has the government secured any information showing that the records and documents connected with bankruptcy proceedings by Max and Adolph Sefkind and/or their companies disclose contributions for campaign purposes to any cabinet ministers or other members of parliament and, if so, to whom and in what amount?
This was the answer given by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice:
The government does not have, on its own files-
I emphasize the word "own".
-nor has it secured, arising out of investigation into bankruptcy frauds now in progress in Montreal, any information showing that the records and documents connected with bankruptcy proceedings by Max and Adolph Sefkind and/or their companies disclose contributions for campaign purposes to any cabinet ministers or other members of parliament.
How important this is, sir, is shown by the fact that the Prime Minister issued what might be called the Prime Minister's "political primer" indicating the proprieties that must be maintained. Indeed, as an aside may I say that document was a colossal indictment of his colleagues, and it would be interesting to know the reaction of the ministers and the replies they gave thereto. We have had no explanation by either of these ministers as to what took place other than a general statement which, to say the least, has not brought about the dissipation of the veil of speculation surrounding these unusual, "unHousehold Finance" transactions which might be described as "Beneficial Finance" transactions.
There are questions to be asked; there are questions to be answered. One would think the ministers would immediately agree that this opportunity should be given. Certainly we should find out, and the country has a right to know, whether the R.C.M.P. has made any investigations following the revelations that are taking place in connection with the bankruptcy commission instituted by the government of the province of Quebec. Has the R.C.M.P. produced any report in connection with this matter? If so, what action does the Department of Justice intend to take in connection with it? The records are available but we are unable to get them from the trustee

in bankruptcy, the accounting firm of McDonald Currie, because the trustee has no power to make information public on these questions.
What about the accounts receivable that appear on the records of the Sefkind firms? Could we be told what records the Bank of Montreal has in connection with this matter? Certainly the answer that was given on December 16 is simply a brush-off answer, and brush-off answers will not meet the serious question of ministerial ethics. So there is urgency, as has been made very clear by the hon. member for Pictou.
The President of the Privy Council said last evening that he hoped the session would end today. A few minutes ago the Prime Minister emphasized the word "hope". Whether it ends today or Monday or Tuesday or whenever it ends, there will be no other opportunity for parliament to consider this matter, a matter of urgency and even more urgent having regard to the serious view that the Prime Minister took in writing a letter to his cabinet associates. Indeed, that letter is one that ought to be attached as an appendix to Hansard so that all who run may read. It sets out the Prime Minister's view very clearly in these words:
It has been said that the elementary qualification demanded of a minister is honesty and incorruptibility. But it is not enough for us to have those qualities. Our attitudes and conduct must be such as to reflect them.
Sir, I am in no way casting aspersions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not said a word that casts an aspersion. The ministers sit in this house with their lips sealed. They had an opportunity today to rise in their places and make the explanation which I would have expected them to make under all the circumstances. They sat silent when they had an opportunity. Yesterday the Prime Minister stated he did not raise a question of privilege because he did not have the opportunity procedurally to explain the situation. That was not according to the facts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a decision was taken on this matter yesterday, and perhaps the right hon. gentleman will observe ministerial ethics in dealing with it.


John George Diefenbaker: I said that the Prime Minister yesterday made a statement that he knew was not in accordance with the facts-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule
on the point I have raised.


John George Diefenbaker: -when he said-wait until I finish the sentence-that he had no procedural opportunity to make an explanation until yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: This howling down of people has got to stop.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is difficult enough for the Chair without extraneous assistance.
I am interested in these remarks, but I am sure the right hon. Leader of the Opposition will confine himself to the matter under discussion today.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out that what the Prime Minister learned yesterday was that procedurally he could have done that and made his explanation at any time; and certainly having learned that yesterday I am surprised the two ministers would not rise and give the house the facts.
They did not do it. Mr. Speaker, they cannot sit this out. They have got to explain what took place and, not having done so, I say to you that no matter is more important than that this be thoroughly discussed; because editorial comment across Canada has been unanimous, I believe-I know of no exception-that an explanation must be made, that this must be cleared up because the circumstances reveal a surprising lack of appreciation for those things that must be maintained not only by ministers but by members.
I say, sir, that under all the circumstances there is urgency. It is a most important matter. The integrity of parliament is the most important matter with which we can deal. These ministers had the opportunity today to explain, but they kept their mouths sealed. We want to know the facts now and there is only one way in which we can find them out; this is through the motion in question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman dealt not, of course, with the urgency of the matter but with the substance of it, and I assume I will be given the same opportunity.


John George Diefenbaker: Absolutely.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He also dealt with it within the context of what he called ministerial ethics. It might help the Leader of the Opposition in coming to a reasonable conclusion on questions of ministerial ethics if he could recall some of the difficulties when he was prime minister which concerned the minis-
Ministerial Conduct
terial discharge of affairs and the action, or lack of action, which he took at that time in the discharge of his responsibilities.


John George Diefenbaker: When?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I read this-*


John George Diefenbaker: No innuendos. Go ahead and reveal what you had in mind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am reading from Hansard of 1959:
We shall not permit, we shall not allow, in our country that something to occur which brought about devastating effects on a responsible government in another country whereby individuals were tried by television, whereby evidence was introduced by innuendo and hearsay.
I say this, that it ill becomes anyone in the house to bring forward a shadow of a motion that in no way offers any proof and behind which the mover does not stand. I will do my utmost to protect the rights of parliament. It is one of the glories of the Canadian parliament that there are few cases in our history where there has been wrongdoing, but where there is wrongdoing it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and all members of the house to do their part to see that it is punished.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I say stand up and make a charge of wrongdoing and stand behind it. I continue the quotation:
Here we have but a piece of paper containing a motion ingeniously contrived in order to sow suspicion.


John George Diefenbaker: Who was the mover of the motion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman moving the motion will not take his stand behind the truth of the allegations ... I say this. I hope I shall never allow any hon. member to be struck in his honour and integrity by a motion such as this, a motion of suspicion fortified only by questions, with the mover holding the high and responsible position of Leader of the Opposition refusing to accept his personal responsibility to make a charge on the basis of his opinion and belief with respect to the alleged findings of wrongdoing...
These observations, Mr. Speaker, were made by the right hon. gentleman-


John George Diefenbaker: And I stand behind them
today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -on June 17, 1959. Let him get up now and make a charge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He won't do that, Mr. Speaker, any more than the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) will do it when he goes on television and talks about lack of integrity in high places.

Ministerial Conduct


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I heard that broadcast, Mr. Speaker, and I asked the hon. gentleman's office for the text and could not get it. But I got the transcript of it, and I have written to him and asked him to produce the evidence on which he charges members of the government with lack of integrity, and of course I have not heard from him.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Prime Minister's comment, I answered his letter three days ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He may have answered but it is still in the office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a question of privilege-


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister forgot for three months.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let me quote the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), speaking in this house, as recorded at page 6368 of Hansard of this year when he said-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a question of privilege.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Prime Minister has suggested that letter is still in my office. I will be very happy to supply him with a copy of that letter, which left my office three days ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not received it. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle had this to say when a certain question was raised in the house concerning the propriety of the conduct of a member of the house, and I do not think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has seconded this motion today:
He picks out a little section out of context-a little something which he hopes will be of some advantage to his mind, that lives in a sewer.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle was referring to an hon. member on this side of the house. Then he went on:
I would simply point out to hon. members on the government side that if they ever try to stir up any thoughts which are not based on the facts, they destroy themselves.
These are very good words to apply to hon. members who make this kind of motion in this context, and I would say to my right hon. friend, who is a great authority on quotations, perhaps he will recall a quotation from Confucius-


Robert Carman Coates: Stop the smokescreen and give us the facts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -perhaps he will recall the quotation from Confucius, "He who digs dirt loses ground."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am also reminded that the same Confucius said "He who hides wrongdoing is a wrongdoer himself."


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. gentleman is he charging wrongdoing?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to Your Honour that the Prime Minister by his very argument has confirmed that we do need a debate on this particular matter. As a matter of fact we have been having it, and I think there is no clearer justification of the urgency than that instead of speaking to the urgency of the matter he immediately engaged in a debate.
We are bothered from the point of view that we consider other matters to be very urgent, but we also feel that there is some merit in the point of view that the house has not been taken into account so far as these explanations are concerned. I think all of us have been reading the public print on the matter and I think we recognize, or at least assume, that the Prime Minister has been carrying on some investigations into this matter.
Therefore we assume that the government and the Prime Minister would welcome the opportunity for a brief debate so the ministers and the Prime Minister could indicate very clearly the details of the matter to us in our forum, rather than in a press conference where you get a different coverage and quite often an incomplete coverage. I hoped that the Prime Minister in speaking to the urgency of this question would have indicated that the government was willing to accept the motion so as to clear up these details. I certainly feel that the question of a charge is a subterfuge on the part of this government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, look at what happened yesterday. I do not believe in rehashing things, but if hon. members want this on the

record I still believe that no matter what the decision of the house was, the Prime Minister misled the house.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, since that news appeared in the newspapers at a time when the house was concerned with a flag debate which forbade the members to raise that question and since the opposition was unable at any time to put questions to the ministers in that respect, it seems to me that, even if today is supposed to be our last sitting day before the adjournment, it would be appropriate to allow a debate on this issue, so that the members and the ministers involved may make the necessary clarifications, since innuendos appeared in the newspapers.
This matter being of some significance, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it would be in order for the Chair to let us discuss it, at this time, with the hope that it will not take us the rest of the day and that we shall proceed with the orders of the day.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, when I hear in 1964 the present Prime Minister quote what the prime minister of 1959 said, I am convinced that the two old parties are alike: When they are in office, they say one thing, and when they are in the opposition, they say the opposite. When they change sides, they say the same things as their predecessors. This confirms my opinion: both are alike. They wish to hide the truth when they are in power and when some things pop up, and they would like to raise scandals when they are in the opposition.
Since the substance of the matter was dealt with, Mr. Speaker, I must state that I have no doubt about the honesty of the minister concerned, but it seems that one point should be clarified.
I refer to the fact that in all these things which have cropped up of late, whether it be the matter presently under judicial inquiry, or furniture, or Hal Banks, there always seems to be a tie with the electoral coffers of the Liberal party. That, Mr. Speaker, far more than the honesty of the ministers, is what brings questions to my mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question we are discussing is whether the house should adjourn under standing order 26 to discuss a matter of urgent national importance; not political speeches or things affecting political
Ministerial Conduct
parties. Two people have been mentioned. That is the subject before the house.


Frank Howard: We have got two rules again.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on taking the floor a while ago the Prime Minister said that he agreed that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition should have some latitude to speak on the substance of the matter. I should like to have the same latitude, but when I attempt to speak, I am called to order. Why?
1 am not accusing anyone, but I wish to point out that every time there is a scandal, the matter of the electoral coffers of the Liberal party crops up. We would like a discussion of this matter and an inquiry into it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is a proper way to make a charge, as the hon. member knows. The question before us is the urgency and the importance of the matter under discussion. We are not concerned with various allegations which have appeared in the papers. We are concerned with the particular question the Chair has to consider at this moment and I would ask the hon. member to restrict himself to the matter under discussion. I am not here to make rules; I am here to apply the rules given to me.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I again refer to the importance of the matter. I think discussion is important for the ministers involved because, if they are not guilty, it would give them the opportunity to clear themselves publicly and before the members of the House of Commons. That is why I think it is important.
As far as the urgency of debate is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask you when we would have an opportunity to discuss this matter if we cannot do it today, since the session might very well end today.
Mr. Speaker, I think the matter should be open to debate. We will support the motion, because we think we should have more information concerning the public affairs of this government, especially regarding electoral funds, because it affects everybody.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another point I should like to discuss. Must a specific charge be made by a member of the House of Commons before something can be discussed or referred to the committee on privileges and elections? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker, because since 1962, that is since the day I entered parlia-

Ministerial Conduct
ment, on various occasions matters were referred to the committee on privileges and elections, and that was never done following specific charges concerning the responsibility of an hon. member.
After all, we are not asking that a charge be laid but that explanations be given on certain points. A charge may be laid later if necessary-and I repeat "if necessary"-and if the investigation should reveal certain irregularities.
But for the time being our purpose is to get some explanations and not to lay charges, because I do not question the integrity of the ministers involved.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, because of the things which have already been said on the substance of this so-called issue I hope you will allow me as a matter of privilege to make a very brief statement.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest we try to reach a decision on the question before me. Then if the minister has any question of privilege to raise, he can raise it.


Maurice Lamontagne: A lot of things have been allowed to be said on the substance of this matter, and since I am directly involved I think I should be allowed to make a very brief statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair does not wish to prevent, and will not prevent, the minister making a statement at the right time; he can always rise on a question of privilege and make his statement. But I have a specific matter to deal with, and I should like to deal with it first. Then if the minister wishes to make a statement I cannot see any particular harm in his doing so.


George James McIlraith: The difficulty as I see it is that the Leader of the Opposition rose and made extensive remarks after the hon. member for Pictou had proposed his motion. In the course of those remarks he dealt in a somewhat extensive way with the whole subject matter.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


George James McIlraith: Well, that is a matter of record. What was said is recorded in Hansard, so let us not get into a controversy here about it. However, having been permitted to make those extensive remarks-


Gilles Grégoire: I was not permitted.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Lapointe was not permitted to make the same kind of extensive remarks. Surely the minister directly involved should, in the circumstances, be permitted to make the same extended remarks as the right hon. gentleman, and he should be allowed to make them as a right, not as a privilege or by a concession of the house. He should be allowed as a right to make remarks exactly in the same context and at the same point in our proceedings. We cannot have a situation where one set of interpretation is permitted for one hon. member and another for another. Surely, since he is directly involved, the minister is entitled to be heard on this point with exactly the same interpretation placed on the latitude for his remarks as was placed on those of the Leader of the Opposition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that has been raised by the Secretary of State, I agree that the minister should be heard; he should be allowed to make a full statement. But I point out to Your Honour that the substance of the matter has already been dealt with both by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and the only way the minister can make a statement is for Your Honour to allow the motion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me that having allowed two speakers, if Your Honour allows the minister to make a statement on the substance of the matter Your Honour will have in effect allowed the motion. In my view, to have the minister make a statement and then for Your Honour to rule that the motion is not relevant and deny anyone else the opportunity of making a statement would be most improper. It seems to me that having allowed the debate to go this far, Your Honour has really no alternative but to allow the motion and let the debate proceed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the point of order raised by my colleague and spoken to by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I wonder whether I could suggest that a factual statement by the two ministers concerned is absolutely essential at this point in order that Your Honour may have the opportunity to determine whether there is any urgency of debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I also suggest, sir- and I hope I will be listened to as the right hon. gentleman was listened to, and not howled down-that hon. members opposite, having made a motion about these two ministers, having made a number of statements about them which they culled from the newspapers and so on, ordinary, elementary justice demands that the two ministers be allowed to make a factual statement of their own position; and that you, sir, cannot properly decide whether this is an urgent matter until we have heard those two hon. gentlemen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this is the most amazing suggestion I have ever heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Transport is suggesting that under the guise of debating urgency two ministers be allowed to make statements which they cannot properly make unless the motion is allowed. I agree that in justice both these ministers should be allowed to make statements. I would go further. In view of the fact that they have both made statements outside this house, they should be required to make statements in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The only way they can properly make those statements is not under the guise of arguing urgency, but for Your Honour to allow the motion, allow them to make their statements and allow the contribution any other hon. member wants to make in the course of the debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think the argument that has just been made by the Minister of Transport makes it abundantly clear that there is urgency of debate. I think the request made by one of the persons named in the motion, namely the Secretary of State, that he should be given an opportunity to make an explanation is in itself an indication that there is urgency of debate.
The Prime Minister argued that there is a need for someone to make a charge. I agreed with him yesterday that when a motion is moved on a question of privilege the member concerned is then-if there is a question of privilege or a prima facie case established- obliged to follow up with a substantive motion containing a charge. The motion yesterday of course did not have a charge in it, but it is a completely different matter to move the adjournment of the house under
Ministerial Conduct
standing order 26, which is the proposition that is before us this afternoon.
Therefore I think the fact that the Secretary of State and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration apparently feel they ought to make statements and ought to make explanations in this house because of certain latitude of discussion that has already taken place is sufficient argument to allow the debate to take place.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can say without hesitation that the matter is not without a certain amount of difficulty; but as Speaker I am bound by form, precedent and also, I hope, a sense of fairness and justice. Before giving this ruling I would say that I do think it is in the interests of the house that a short explanation be given by the two ministers concerned, particularly in view of the wide latitude given this morning to the right hon. Prime Minister, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and even, if I may say so, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and others. Therefore I think it is in the interests of fair play and justice that not necessarily a statement but certainly an explanation be given by the two ministers concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hope that I expressed last night, I wonder if we could agree to sit through the lunch hour-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George James McIlraith: -for the purpose of carrying out that hope.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it would be much better if we sat at the dinner table instead of sitting through this muck-raking.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we would prefer that you call it one o'clock, because this will enable us to consider the ruling you have just made, for, in my opinion, your decision is one which we will appeal.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, may I call
it one o'clock?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour leaves the chair may I ask a question.

Ministerial Conduct
Am I to understand from Your Honour's ruling that the two ministers in question may make statements on the matter of urgency, and will Your Honour also allow other members of the house to make statements following the ministers' statements?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That will have to be allowed, if it is under privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I do think the hon. member is asking for quite a bit. It is the wish of the Chair to have an explanation this morning from the two ministers concerned and not to continue with a long debate unless it be necessary. My particular problem is to reach a decision on whether the house should be adjourned under standing order 26. In view of the latitude given this morning and in fairness to the two persons charged-informally, if you wish-they should at least have the opportunity of making short statements. I think those statements should be made before rendering a decision as to whether standing order 26 is to be applied. If the house would give consent for those statements to be made now it would be of material assistance to the Chair; but I am in the hands of the house, of course. Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the minister himself called it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: This morning when the house recessed for lunch we had certain matters under discussion, and I think it might be useful if I gave my view at this moment not on the principal question whether or not the house should adjourn but on the question whether or not hon. members are entitled to make remarks for the benefit of the Chair. I do not necessarily mean statements; I mean remarks to assist the Chair in arriving at a conclusion.
This morning reference was made to standing order 26 to which a revision has been made this session as a result of a suggestion

by the committee on procedure and organization, and I think it might be useful to refer to it at this moment. Standing order 26 (3) reads:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker. If Mr. Speaker questions the urgency of debate with respect to the proposed matter, he may invite members to speak on the question of such urgency.
It then goes on to refer to other matters, but the point is that the Speaker "may" invite members-which is only right, of course- to assist him in trying to arrive at a proper conclusion.
In virtue of that, this morning several members gave the Chair the benefit of their views, which were in fact quite extensive. The matter under discussion should have related to urgency and in some cases it went far beyond that and related to the substance; but no matter, several hon. members did have the opportunity of assisting the Chair. So it seems to me that the Chair should extend the same privilege to other members, within reason. The privilege should not be abused, but the Chair is entitled, within reason, to call upon other members of the house for their views-again I stress the point; not statements, but views-as to the urgency of the matter.
Therefore I propose to extend the same privilege to the Secretary of State (Mr. La-montagne), not for the purpose of having him make a formal statement, but for the purpose of allowing him to present his views for the assistance of the Chair. I think it is only a matter of common right and justice that he should, within reason, have the same latitude which was extended to other hon. members this morning.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, I am in a little difficulty here on several counts. First of all, the Secretary of State (Mr. La-montagne) did rise and say he wanted to speak on a question of privilege. He also said he had a prepared statement, which you, Mr. Speaker, could not have known about. It seems to me that if the hon. gentleman wants to rise on a question of privilege and so state, then you, Mr. Speaker, must hear that question of privilege before you decide it, and by that time it will be on the record. This has been going on in the house for years.
I find difficulty in allowing this type of statement to be made when we are under the impression, and I think rightly so, that the minister had a prepared statement when he came into the house. Under the circumstances, I believe that if he wants to make a statement

on a question of privilege, then let him make it on a question of privilege. Then, after hearing it, if Your Honour says there is no question of privilege involved, that is up to you. But I think that is the way we should proceed; and I too am only trying to help the Chair.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I had no prepared statement this morning. I have one now and I think I should be allowed to make that statement because of what has been said this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: We are playing with words. I am sure the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamon-tagne) wishes to present his views to the Chair, and the use of the word "statement" is a difficulty between French and English, if I understand him properly.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago when my Ottawa home burnt down, several pieces of furniture were destroyed. The cost of damage was high, since my insurance had expired without my knowledge, due to the death of my insurance agent. At that time, I had to refurnish my home in part on a temporary basis.
In the spring of 1962, before my daughter's wedding, I decided that I could no longer delay buying new furniture. I then bought furniture on credit from the Futurama store, a well known Montreal firm. There was never any question of a gift. I received statements of account and, besides, my account was normally transferred by the company, like all other outstanding accounts, to the Bank of Montreal in early January 1964.
I must also point out that at the time, I was a private citizen and not yet a member of parliament, and that my salary was $12,000, rather than $27,000, as suggested by a journalist.
After my election, I certainly would have been able to settle this account, but early in May 1963, a member of my family had to retire from active life for reasons of ill health and asked me to lend him $3,000 to help build a small home. I felt unable to refuse him this service, but this meant that I would have to postpone starting to pay my debt.
In December 1963, I made a second purchase of furniture for the apartment I have in my riding, and I intended to pay for it without delay at the time. However, I did not have this opportunity, as I received the first statement about January 21, when all the company's accounts had already been taken
Ministerial Conduct
over by the Bank of Montreal. The bank got in touch with me at the time. I proposed an arrangement which was immediately accepted, and I now have repaid about half my liability.
I wish to add that I did not take part directly or indirectly in any fraudulent activities. Moreover, the Sefkind brothers and their companies did not get any favour from the government through my intervention. More particularly, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) informs me that an investigation has revealed that his department did not get any offer for sale, by tender or otherwise, and that it did not buy anything from the Sefkind brothers or their companies since April 1963.
I do not intend at this stage to comment on the false rumours and slanderous comments that can be heard in the halls of parliament or read in the newspapers about that incident. Before resuming my seat, I would like to give some advice to all hon. members of the house.
Should you want to buy furniture, pay cash. Should you buy on terms and should your supplier go bankrupt later on, you and your family would go through very unpleasant moments, especially if you feel you have made some sacrifices to remain in public life.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity afforded me to lay before the house the facts about the furniture I bought from the Futurama Company Inc., Montreal, in order that you may rule on the merits of the motion for adjournment.
In order to complete the furnishing of my new house, in the summer of 1963, I went to Montreal with my wife to the show room of the Futurama Company, a firm which is known for the high quality of its furniture, which had been in business for more than 20 years and where many prominent people from Quebec city and Montreal went regularly to make their purchases.
The first delivery of furniture was made on November 15, 1963, the second, on November 28, 1963, the third, on December 19, 1963 and the fourth on January 10, 1964.
After the above deliveries, there were still a few more pieces of furniture to come.
It was on February 19 that the manager of the Bank of Montreal advised me of the bankruptcy of the Futurama Company and of my account, as of that date, with that company.
Six days later, on February 25, 1964, I sent to the manager of the Bank of Montreal a cheque in the amount of $3,341.69, and on

Ministerial Conduct
March 2, 1964, I sent him a second cheque in the amount of $240.41, after adjustments, since some furniture items had not been received by then.
Thus, I was waiting for my last furniture delivery before making the final payment to Futurama, which did not take place before the bankruptcy.
I am still dealing with Fraser Brothers, the company which bought out Futurama and which gave me the assurance that they could complete the order and exchange some lamps, delivered to me by mistake, which did not match the selected design.
That business transaction with the Futurama company was conducted in the most normal way, and at no time did I have the impression of benefiting unduly from that company.
Any insinuation to that effect is malicious, and those who are guilty of such insinuations are assuming a heavy responsibility indeed before this house and the country as a whole.


Mr. Speaker:: I must now decide whether or not the motion now before the house to adjourn the house under standing order No. 26 should be received.
This morning we had a wide discussion as to the urgency of this matter, and it seems to me that we got into the substance of the matter to a much greater degree than necessary. I must take some responsibility in that regard.
However, we are here dealing primarily, it seems to me, with the conduct of ministers. According to paragraph 3 of the motion submitted to me in these words:
These public admissions indicate action totally inconsistent with proper conduct of ministers of the crown.
In this connection I must-I tried to do this this morning without success-refer to Bourinot's fourth edition, page 300 where the following is stated:
Certain matters cannot be debated save upon a substantive motion which can be dealt with by amendment or by distinct vote of the house, such as, the conduct of the Governor General, the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, members of either house of parliament-
This has frequently been interpreted in this country to include ministers of the crown.
Later on in the same paragraph it is stated:
For the same reason, no charges of a personal character can be raised save upon a distinct and substantive motion to that effect.
[Mr, Tremblay.l
This seems to be borne out by Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 127 (2) which reads:
Unless discussion is based upon a substantive motion drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne or members of the Royal Family, the Governor General of a dominion, the Speaker, the chairman of ways and means, members of either house of parliament-
Again in my opinion this includes the personal conduct of ministers of the crown, and I do not see any other way of interpreting that particular subsection.
Citation 100(2) of Beauchesne's fourth edition states:
Matters arising out of the debates of the same session, or the term of a bill before the House of Lords, matters of privilege or order, or matters debatable only upon a substantive motion, cannot be submitted to the house under this standing order.
There is then a reference to standing order No. 26.
In the circumstances I regret that I cannot receive the motion which is presented for debate at this time.



COMPANIES ACT

Maurice Lamontagne: the first reading of Bill No. S-22 (from the Senate), to amend the Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question, in connection with the matter to which you have just referred, to the Minister of Justice, asking him whether or not there has been an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police into the bankruptcy of the Sefkind Brothers or the companies which they operated. Has he as Minister of Justice anyone present at the investigation by the government of the province of Quebec into fraudulent bankruptcies? Will he, in order to clear up the matter respecting the question put on the order paper by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, communicate with the trustee, Peter Christie of the firm of McDonald Currie, and empower that official to make available the documents in his possession with regard to the transactions on the part of these people or those connected with them?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, I must say that as soon as I noted on the order paper the question on the possible advance of contributions and electoral funds, I asked the R.C.M.P. to conduct an investigation. At the same time, I advised the ministers concerned that I was asking for such an investigation to be undertaken, and they approved of my decision.
It is the result of this investigation, as far as the R.C.M.P. could make it, that is reflected in the answer given to question 2,423 on the order paper.
As far as the second part of the question put a moment ago by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is concerned, he will understand that under the rules of the house I must take it as notice, but I can assure him that I will immediately take steps to obtain the required information.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Minister of Justice if he has received from the R.C.M.P. a full report on the Sefkind bankruptcy proceedings and if this report is now in his possession?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I made it quite clear a while ago that at the risk of asking the R.C.M.P. to somewhat override the limits of their jurisdiction, I requested that an investigation be made so that I could answer the question put on the order paper.
As regards the matter of bankruptcies and any investigation in bankruptcy frauds, it is clear that from the strict point of view of federal jurisdiction, any information that could be obtained is restricted to what the superintendent of bankruptcy has in his possession because of his official function. Bankruptcy frauds as such being criminal offences come under the attorney general of the province and the investigation made in the case of the companies in which people were or are involved, as I understand, was made and is being carried out probably in the name and at the instance of the attorney general of the province.
Under such circumstances, I am not so sure that it comes under my jurisdiction to order an investigation. However, what I have tried to do up to now and what I will try to do, is obtain the most complete body of informa-
Inquiries of the Ministry tion from those authorities that have jurisdiction, taking into consideration the respective powers of the Minister of Justice and of the attorney general of the province of Quebec.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Justice inform the house whether any report at all has been made to the superintendent of bankruptcy in his department in connection with this matter?


Guy Favreau: I shall take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



THE MINISTRY-CODE OF ETHICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to give us an explanation of the situation that led him to issue the so-called code of ethics. I should also like to ask him if he would be kind enough to table it in the house so it can become part of the permanent records of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to table it. The letter speaks for itself.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister, in any follow-up to the letter which he sent to his ministers, carried on any investigation or set up any investigation on his own into the situation that was involved in the whole question of ethics?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the hon. gentleman had been in the house long enough to know that ministerial discussions and ministerial exchanges are not made public in the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: Why was the document produced then?



DORION COMMISSION-LETTER OF CLARIFICATION BY PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether, immediately prior to the writing of the letter of clarification of the Dorion



X1322 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry inquiry, he or any of his staff received any threat of any kind from any member of the press gallery that the matter would be made public unless that letter was written immediately? Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious question I am asking.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious question and a very impertinent question. I do not act on instructions from the press gallery in these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to take lessons on impertinence from the Prime Minister.


George James McIlraith: You are an expert on that.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him this question. Having made this codex ministrensis-I suppose that is the proper Latin expression- available to the press, thus making it a public document, did the Prime Minister receive any letters from any of his ministers? It is no longer a question of ministerial confidentiality, the Prime Minister having made this extraordinary document available to the people of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I did not make the document available to the press, and the right hon. gentleman, who was once the head of a government, should know and I am sure does know that exchanges between ministers are not made public in the house unless they are tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: Why then did the Prime Minister make this document available which cast aspersions on every member of his cabinet by the very fact that he sent it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This document cast no aspersions upon any member of the cabinet. It lays down a code of conduct and ethics which has been followed by members of the cabinet, a code of conduct and ethics that might well have been laid down by my right hon. friend when he was prime minister. One of the reasons for this exchange with my cabinet ministers was to warn them about the kind of innuendo and insinuation they might leave themselves open to if they were not extremely careful in these things.


An hon. Member:: In other words, cover it up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has


worked out any method by which the code of ethics can be made retroactive?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; Mr. Speaker, I think it should be made retroactive to 1867, and also to provincial governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister does not believe in innuendoes and smears I wonder would he like to be more specific because I for one-


Some hon. Members:: Lay a charge.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -would be very glad to see the Prime Minister make a definite statement and lay a charge.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman made a definite statement. He asked me if this document could be made retroactive. I said yes, and to 1867, and to provincial governments. Surely that is a very reasonable reply.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister, since it was sent to his cabinet, how does he feel this would be applicable to provincial governments? Surely it was sent to his cabinet because it was felt his cabinet needed it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I presume provincial ministers have the same sense of responsibility as federal ministers, even in the province of Saskatchewan.



POSSIBLE ACTION RESPECTING ONTARIO SUPREME COURT JUDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Some time ago the Minister of Justice promised to make a statement to the house on the position of Mr. Justice Landreville. He said, later, that he would postpone making that statement for reasons he did not explain. Is the minister now in a position to make the statement he undertook to give us?


Guy Favreau: am not now in a position to make a statement on the matter.



THEFTS FROM DORVAL AIRPORT-POLICE INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, and I have broken it down into several parts. Can the minister report to the house on the theft of $100,000

in bullion and other specie from Dorval airport on Monday last, the second such theft at Montreal airport, as I understand it, in approximately six months?
Is an investigation being carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and what precautionary measures are being taken to prevent recurrence which would be damaging to Canada's reputation and security?
What investigation is being made of the statement by local police that this was an "inside job"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this is a question for the order paper.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question having to do with Dorval airport.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Well, I have not had an answer yet. I wonder whether the minister would give an answer?


Guy Favreau: You should give notice.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is quite an urgent matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest this question be put on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: With great deference, Mr. Speaker, this is the last day and the matter is of great importance. We are trying to expedite the business of the house, but this is a matter on which information should certainly be available.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I did not quite get the statement of the minister. He asked, why did I not-what?


Guy Favreau: Give notice.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like an answer, if I may have it.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that no minister, as I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree, can carry in his head figures and facts which concern the aspects of a very vast department. I am sure that had I received notice of this question either yesterday or this morning I would have inquired about it and would probably have been in a position to answer today. All I can do now is take this question as notice. However, I can say this. If in the meantime, at a time when the hon. gentleman is available, I obtain the information, I will be pleased to give it to him personally. I will, of course, report to the house at the first opportune time.
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE



INQUIRY AS TO NUMBER OF DEATHS BY SUICIDE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. With respect to the inordinately high rate of suicides in the R.C.M.P. he replied some days ago that he would undertake to look into the matter to see if he could ascertain the explanation. Is he now in a position to give that information to the house?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have obtained some information on this matter. However, I think the best way to answer the question would be to prepare a short statement that I could read to the house at the first opportunity.
What I can say is that impressions created in the press were obviously caused by misinterpretations. But, in order to give the house accurate information, I feel I should give more than just a verbal report. That is why I should like to table figures and show, with each group of figures, the causes or reasons which led to the suicides, to the extent that they could be determined by the investigations in each case.



DISMISSALS FOR MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask is he now in a position to inform the house whether reports are correct that the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. recommended the dismissal and firing of two high ranking officers for misappropriation of funds, and that that decision of the commissioner was changed by himself or by the cabinet, for retirement purposes and pension, in order that they be gagged?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the R.C.M.P. commissioner was changed neither by myself nor by cabinet. At one stage of the proceedings cabinet had to take a responsibility upon my recommendation, and the cabinet took its responsibility in a sense which in my opinion was totally consistent with a sense of fair play and justice.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Harold Edward Winch: As a supplementary question, I ask the Minister of Justice whether or not the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. recommended the dismissal of the two men concerned?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, if this is an allowable question would you ask that it be put on the order paper?


Harold Edward Winch: What have you got to hide, Mr. Minister?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would think the minister would want to answer that question. Of course he had a discretion to exercise. I am frank to admit that, but whatever discretion is to be exercised by the cabinet is certainly something the house should know about. That does not imply any criticism to ask that question, but what was the order of the cabinet in that regard?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a matter of principle that the question should be ordered to be put on the order paper. It will be fully answered. There is, of course, nothing to hide, but it seems to be the type of practice and procedure followed by these hon. gentlemen across the way always to insinuate that, because we do not want to break the rules, we have something to hide.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise immediately on a question of privilege. I make it perfectly clear there was a discretion to be exercised by the minister and the cabinet. This is a matter of an appeal to them but strangely enough this government, with all the codes of decency and responsibility-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -strangely will not carry them out.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice concerning the R.C.M.P. officers. Since the decision of cabinet would have to be reflected, I assume on the basis of an order in council, would he be willing to table that order in council in order to clarify the matter?


Guy Favreau: It is not always with pleasure I answer the questions of the hon. member for Yukon but this time I will say yes with pleasure.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a question of privilege. This morning I indicated- and I rise now because the hon. gentleman is in his seat-that I had written a letter to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) on December 14 and at the time of speaking I had not received a reply. I have checked into this and I find that when the house opened this morning no reply of any kind had been delivered to my box. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, two replies have been delivered. One was delivered to my office by hand and the other to my mailroom in the east block, stamped on December 18, 1964, 1.40 p.m.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege and in view of the Prime Minister's distaste for innuendo I would like to reiterate once again that that letter left my office on December 15, on Tuesday last. If there is such confusion in the Prime Minister's office that he did not discover it, then it is not my fault.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, during the last two or three minutes suggestions have been thrown across the floor of this chamber that there has been delay on the part of post office officials. Delays in postal services are to be expected at this time of year, but I think the house should know, especially the hon. gentlemen casting aspersions, that the post office in this building is the responsibility of the Speaker of the house, not the Postmaster General.


Mr. Speaker:: In further explanation I would like to say the Speaker is overworked.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The Prime Minister referred to a statement concerning a letter he has received from the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. Since there is a considerable aura of mystery surrounding this letter I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would mind tabling it or giving the house a summary of its contents.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be very glad to table the letter and my reply.



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the inability of the Canadian coastguard to provide assistance to Nova Scotia fishermen during a recent storm, which resulted in the loss of two lives, will the minister give consideration to constructing adequate ships for the coastguard service, with authority granted to the captains to rescue crews and tow disabled ships to port when they are in trouble?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to make a slightly more than usually extended reply to the hon. gentleman's question I may say that last autumn-I have the date somewhere here-the hon. member will recall a question arose about towing by the coastguard. I undertook at that time to have the matter looked into and to see whether more satisfactory and more clearly defined arrangements could be made in this regard.
This matter has been receiving consideration and certain clarifications in the instructions-which I do not think the hon. gentleman would expect me to attempt to outline here-have been made.
With respect to the recent tragic events off the coasts of Nova Scotia there is, I am frank to admit, evidence that there was a certain lack of adequate co-ordination between the various-


An hon. Member:: There sure was.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am admitting it without any hesitation, and with deep regret because lives were lost. There was a lack of adequate co-ordination between the various agencies which collectively have the responsibility for search and rescue. I am not pretending there wasn't. I have investigated this thing very carefully, or at least had it investigated. I have seen the reports, so far, of the investigations and it is my opinion that even if this lack of co-ordination had not existed, in the circumstances with which the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg is more familiar with than I, it would, unhappily, have made no real difference because there was no vessel capable of dealing with the terrible situations in those terrible storms. But if it did not serve to do any other good it did
Inquiries of the Ministry reveal there were some defects in communication and organization. I intend to do everything I can, and I am sure all the ministers who have this responsibility intend to do everything they can, to see that any defects in co-ordination are remedied without delay.
I say this without even having had a chance to consult with my colleague the Minister of National Defence who has just returned to Ottawa and who has, as head of the R.C.A.F., the primary responsibility, but I know I have his concurrence.
I would not pretend for a moment that even the best practices in the world would enable us to deal with the kind of storm, the like of which has not taken place for years and which afflicted the east coast a short while ago.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wish to thank the minister for his answer and ask him whether in reconsidering the duties of the Canadian coastguard service he would consider giving authority to the captains of these ships to act upon their own discretion in cases of distress.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a great deal more latitude given to captains now than they thought they had when this incident took place some months ago. This is a difficult problem because one has to be sure that we are not supplanting people who make their living by towing and that there is a genuine case of distress, not a case of someone who wants to get something free.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to inform the house at what date the government intends to proclaim the new single maple leaf flag, the distinctive national flag, and what kind of ceremony the government intends to prepare to observe this historical event?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter is under consideration. There are a good many formalities to be completed, as I have informed the house previously, including the proclamation by Her Majesty. It is hoped that these formalities will be concluded in a matter of weeks. Then there is the question of proclaiming the flag in Canada

Inquiries of the Ministry as the Canadian national flag with the kind of ceremony which will be worthy of such an important national occasion. It will be a matter of some weeks.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the right hon. Prime Minister a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer).
Should there be a ceremony to mark the inauguration of the new flag while the house is not sitting, and inasmuch as the distinctive national flag is the result of the joint effort of the various members and political parties of the house, does the Prime Minister intend to invite the members of the various political parties in the house to attend and participate in the inaugural ceremony of the new Canadian flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, indeed. I would hope this would be a parliamentary occasion.



WHEAT-STATEMENT BY NORTHERN AFFAIRS MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The
matter I now raise has been before me for some time but this is the first occasion I can find to put it forward.


An hon. Member:: Procedural difficulties.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I ask this question because I think it should be cleared up. Some of us have a feeling that this may be the last day for this parliament to sit.


Some hon. Members:: Parliament?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My question has to do with the policy of the government concerning a matter which is of great significance in western Canada. It is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the statement made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in Saskatoon to the annual convention of the Saskatchewan Liberal party to the effect that a two-price system for wheat under which domestic purchasers would pay a higher price than the subsidized export price would be too much of a burden on domestic consumers, represent the policy of the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not seen the statement to which the hon. member has referred. I would wish to


examine it carefully before replying because it deals with a very important matter. I will give an answer as soon as I have had a chance to consider the matter.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: In the kindly spirit of Christmas I should like to address a question to the kindly Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and ask him whether he can tell us anything at all about the progress of the Indian claims commission.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the amended bill has been accepted by myself and by the officers of my department, and the next step will be the discussion of this new bill amended by the cabinet committee on legislation.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the Hall commission report strongly recommended a federal-provincial conference within six months, what steps have been taken toward the calling of such a conference bearing in mind that tomorrow six months will have elapsed since the report was published.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think the hon. member was in the house on many occasions when this question was discussed. There is to be a meeting some time in the new year. Recently the premiers have indicated that they would prefer it not to be held too soon.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. This is a question of urgency; it is not a matter for the order paper. It arises out of the meeting the minister had

recently with the harbour board commissioners, with the delegation from the international woodworkers of America and representatives of industries which will be displaced by the plan to build a grain elevator on the north shore of Vancouver harbour. We are all grateful that there has been a two month extension of the time available to these industries.
Is the minister now able to say what consideration is being given to making available a financial subsidy or loan so as to enable the four industries concerned to relocate on sites where they may continue to operate and maintain their employment capacity?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the hon. member's question was somewhat lengthy, perhaps I might be permitted to say that I appreciate immensely the co-operation of the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool who at some considerable inconvenience to the organization, which is anxious to get on with the building of its elevator, consented to make certain arrangements which give us two more months in which to consider the future of these industries. I should like to express my appreciation publicly.
I should also like to say that the delegation which I received was most understanding. I think I grasped pretty well what their problems are. The harbour board is giving them careful consideration. If the bell had not rung at 2.30 I would have had a report from the chairman of the harbour board who was trying to reach me by telephone. Not having received that report I am afraid I cannot yet give even a tentative answer to the question put to me by the hon. member. But the matter is under active consideration.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question in order that the situation should be clear. Am I to understand that what is under consideration now is the making of a subsidy or a loan in connection with readjustment? Is that it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was suggested to me that if certain financial help could be given to these industries they might be relocated without any undue displacement of employment. I, of course, could give no undertaking that such assistance could be given but I did say I would examine the proposition very carefully and if I felt something could be suggested to my colleagues I would propose it to them.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



AUTOMOBILES AND PARTS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DUTY FREE PROVISIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he anything to report as to whether or not Canada and the United States are nearing agreement to establish duty free trade in automobiles and parts?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this very important matter is under active consideration and there is nothing I can announce yet.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the letter on ethics and the abolition of patronage thereby, would the Prime Minister explain the reason why the Montreal world fair account has been transferred from six agencies, two of them French Canadian, to Cockfield, Brown & Co. Ltd., the chief advertising agency of the national Liberal federation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, without accepting in any way the implications of the question, I would point out to the right hon. gentleman that the world fair corporation is not under the control of the government. However, I would be glad to look into the point he has raised. I would also remind the right hon. gentleman that the word "patronage" did not appear in the letter to which he referred.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister say that it was not to be interpreted, as the press interpreted it, as the abolition of patronage?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask whether his attention has been drawn to the article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of December 5, in which two Ottawa citizens, James Beauchamp and Fred L.

Inquiries of the Ministry Farha, Canadian citizens of Lebanese extraction, contended that they were called in on the instructions of the Lebanese ambassador, M. Edmond Khayat, and intimidated with reference to their political activities with the threat of some misfortune or ill treatment being meted out to their families which are still in Lebanon? I want to ask the minister whether he has taken any action with respect to this matter, if the ambassador in question has been called in, and if any action has been taken by the government to ask the government of Lebanon to recall him if the facts in this article are correct.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the various press reports on this subject were called to my attention and I have received a telegram containing certain allegations in very general terms. This telegram is now being examined by the department in the light of normal diplomatic practice, and I have given instructions that it be discussed with the Lebanese embassy here in Ottawa. This is the usual practice. I arrived back just last night and have not had a report of these discussions. Perhaps before the day is out I may be in a position to say something further in this connection. Just before I left I gave instructions that this matter was to be discussed forthwith with the Lebanese ambassador, because on the surface the circumstances were certainly of an order that called for explanation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs who the telegram was from and whether any of the officials of his department have interviewed either of the gentlemen in question in order to verify the newspaper reports of the accusations which they made regarding the Lebanese ambassador?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say who the telegram was from, Mr. Speaker. I saw it, but I forget who it was from. With regard to the last part of the hon. member's question,
I will make inquiries about that matter.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask whether he and his colleague the Secretary of State

for External Affairs have been able to make any further progress since we last had an opportunity of raising the question of the establishment of straight base lines, which would alter our territorial seas and our fishing zones, in accordance with the principle outlined in the bill with which the house dealt some time ago.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, as I replied to a similar question of the hon. member some weeks ago, negotiations are under way with the countries involved and progress is being made.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister suggested several times that the negotiations were under way. I wonder whether he would mind checking to see whether the engines of the ship of state have come to a halt and the ship has lost way.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I do not believe this is a proper question to answer, Mr. Speaker.



ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS-INCREASE IN PERCENTAGE RATE OF SUBSIDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has any consideration been given to increasing the percentage rate of subsidy under the fishing vessels assistance regulations covering fishing vessels 35 feet and over, in order to bring the subsidy more in line with the tonnage rates formerly paid?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can accept the statement made by the hon. member that the percentage rates now being offered are not in line with the tonnage rate, however, I can inform the hon. member that the whole matter is under consideration.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which relates to one of the main landing routes into the Dorval airport. In view of the proposed tower over the world fair site, which is supposed to rise

1,400 feet into the air, has the minister inquired of his officials as to whether this tower will meet air safety regulations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, at this stage that is a hypothetical question.



SYDNEY, N.S.-CALL FOR TENDERS FOR TERMINAL BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, asking him whether he is in a position to advise us as to how soon tenders may be called for the new airport terminal building at Sydney?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not sure of the exact status of this situation, but I do know, as does the hon. gentleman, that it is under active consideration.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the services of the R.C.M.P. have been requested by the government of Saskatchewan to investigate an alleged bribe, involving the small amount of $300,000, that was supposed to have been made to a former attorney general of Saskatchewan?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a brief question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to say whether a contract has yet been let for the construction of a new car ferry for operation between Borden and Cape Tormentine?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to give an answer at this time, but if the hopes of the house leader are realized, I hope that I will be able to do so soon.
Inquiries of the Ministry PENSIONS



CANADA PLAN-NEGOTIATIONS WITH PREMIER OF ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what steps, if any, he has taken to negotiate or talk with the premier of Ontario regarding the Canada pension plan and Ontario's position relating to it, particularly in view of the fact that recent indications seem to be that Ontario is not going to take part?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had no recent discussions with the prime minister of Ontario, but so far as we are concerned federally, we are going ahead with the plan.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, can we take it from the Prime Minister's answer that the arrangements in so far as the Canada pension plan are concerned, which were negotiated with Quebec, will apply, so far as the federal government is concerned, to Ontario, if that province is willing to accept them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker. We are going ahead with our consideration of a bill which will apply to Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: Arising out of the answer just given by the Prime Minister, has there been any indication from the government of Ontario that it intends to set up its own pension scheme, or has the government of Canada received any communication from provincial authorities in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No communication regarding that course of action has been received by the federal government from the government of Ontario.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the cabinet has given any consideration, or has reached a decision as to the minting of a gold coin for our centennial celebrations?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: A number of suggestions have been made along those lines, Mr. Speaker, but no decision has been made.

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DESIGNATED AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the subject matter of the question I am about to ask was not dealt with during my absence. As the Minister of Labour is not in the house, I want to direct this question to the Minister of Industry.
Is the minister in a position to let us know when we shall be told which are the designated areas in the country?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I shall discuss the matter with the Minister of Labour.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the house leader. In view of the fact that last night he indicated 12 items of government business for today, without indicating the order in which those items would be called, I wonder whether before we get to orders of the day he could tell us the order of priority among those 12 items.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I may have been a little optimistic last night. I did indicate at that time that we would call the opting out resolution first, and I think hon. members will understand why, bearing in mind new standing order 61. But if the house would agree that the provisions of standing order 61 would remain applicable if we called the legislation concerning the Judges Act amendment first, I have reason to believe it would only take a few moments, and the other place is waiting for the bill. Then we would call the Combines Investigation Act amendment, which I believe is equally short. We would call those two items and then the opting out resolution. I would also like to ask the house now, Mr. Speaker, whether it could be agreed that we would waive the private members' hour at five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we do that, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may ask the house leader a supplementary question. So

far he has told us about only three of the 12 items that he announced last night. What is the government's position with respect to the labour code, bearing in mind the commitment the government made that this legislation would be put through before Christmas?


George James McIlraith: With regard to the labour standards bill, Mr. Speaker, I do not see how it will be possible to call it, in the circumstances that exist today. I regret that very much, not only because of my own statements that we expected to have it through before Christmas but also because of the nature of the legislation, which the government regards as of the utmost importance. But we are unfortunately in the position where it would appear that certain amendments we have in mind to propose could not be expected to be passed in a reasonably short time. In any event, Mr. Speaker, there is still outstanding for discussion one point in regard to this legislation that is of concern to the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if the house were prepared to sit on Monday, would the government be ready to proceed with the labour standards bill on that day?


George James McIlraith: I would think not, Mr. Speaker. I might add that I regret this very much because I for one feel that I did lead hon. gentlemen to believe that we would bring it forward before the Christmas recess.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was a very firm commitment.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I realize that, and I regret it very much. The answer to the question, in any event, is that I do not see how we could be ready with this legislation on Monday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give us some reason? Surely the house is entitled to be given some reason, in view of the very serious and solemn commitments that have been made, as to why the government is not ready today and cannot be ready by Monday to proceed with this piece of legislation that was before the committee of the whole four weeks ago.


An hon. Member:: The flag was too important.


George James McIlraith: I do not know how fully I should develop the reasons, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member will appreciate that a great many

representations have been made as to the effect of the operations of the bill on certain labour groups in the country. Those representations had to be taken into account and considered very carefully, and they were. As a result there are some amendments that we propose to make to the bill. In any event, there is one question still outstanding and the government has it under quite active consideration. That is the way the matter stands at the moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I correct the statement that I made. I said it was a month ago, but I find on checking that it was two months ago that this matter was before the committee of the whole. It seems to me this matter was before the committee of the whole for a long time.


George James McIlraith: That is quite right, Mr. Speaker. It was many weeks ago in any event, although I do not have the precise date when the matter was before the house. A great many representations were made. This bill is one which in the view of the government is very important, and it is a matter of getting or trying to get, a perfect bill through to enactment, rather than a less perfect bill. These representations did reveal some need for perfecting the bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister or the leader of the house, whoever is the more appropriate to answer. Is the government in a position to state whether this session is going to be adjourned or prorogued; and in either event what is the period of time the government has in mind before the house is brought into session again?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to answer that question. The government proposes to submit a motion to the house, when the house is ready to receive it, providing for an adjournment of the house until February 16, subject to the provision which has been made in the last several adjournments that the Speaker can call the house back earlier if the necessity should arise. There is also a provision in the proposed motion that in the event that His Honour the Speaker is unable, owing to illness or other cause, to recall the house the Deputy Speaker could act in his stead if need be.


Harold Edward Winch: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The previous speaker basically asked the question I wanted to ask, but I should like to ask the
Inquiries of the Ministry house leader if it is not possible, out of respect and consideration for those members who have to travel a great distance, to state the intentions of the government as to when it proposes to adjourn so that we can make our reservations.


George James McIlraith: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the opposition groups but I would hope it would be possible to adjourn in another two and a half hours.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, since everyone seems to be getting into a better mood may I ask a supplementary question which is prompted by the many approaches which have been made by the longshoremen regarding the labour standards bill, and which may give the impression that I am in favour of a delay in the legislation, or at least approval of what has been put forward. Will the minister assure the longshoremen, who are worried about the effect of this bill on their working situation in Halifax and Saint John during the winter months, that every opportunity will be given to them in the meantime to put their case forward; and if satisfaction is not achieved in this regard, will the government bring in amendments which will deal with their particular situation?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is yes; I hope these representations will be made very quickly.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question to the house leader. Does the government have in mind the recall of the house earlier than February 16 if the Canada pension plan committee has completed its final report before that date?


George James McIlraith: Well, Mr. Speaker, one can never tell and it is impossible to give a precise answer to that question. I hope it will not be necessary to recall the house before February 16 because it seems to me there is a great deal of work to be done by the pension committee, but it may be necessary. I just cannot foresee the future.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementary question. I wonder whether the house leader could use his influence on the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare so that the members of the pension committee will have a little longer holiday than from now until January 12. I think this is asking too much.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a further supplementary question of the house leader?


Mr. Speaker:: Anything to do with holidays, I understand, is quite pressing.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the fact that the permanent members of the House of Commons who have been sitting for 11 months receive an annual salary, could the minister state whether on the recess sessional employees will be kept on the staff and on pay?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That matter has been considered very carefully, and in view of the large number of members of the regular and permanent staff who are still to take holidays, and because of the fact that there will be committees sitting and extra help required for the purpose, it is going to be necessary for all sessional staff to be kept on throughout the whole adjournment period.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. My understanding is that this series of questions started out as a question to the house leader concerning the labour standards code bill, and my supplementary question relates to that aspect. I should like to ask the house leader whether, since he has indicated that except for one small point certain changes to the bill as originally drafted are in the mind of the government, he would not agree that it would be desirable that we at least resume the delayed consideration of the committee of the whole so that members of the house may become acquainted with the changes to which the government has already agreed, in light of the many representations and questions which many hon. members are receiving on this matter. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that even if we did not conclude our considerations we would be able to understand the whole matter in a much better light and deal with these questions during the recess if we were to agree to give some further consideration to the bill prior to any recess. This supplementary question relates to the one asked earlier by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam with respect to our spending some time on Monday discussing the labour standards code bill.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am very doubtful whether it would be possible to accede to the hon. member's request, although 1 will consider it and see what progress we make. But I really do not see how it is possible to meet this request, much as I should like to.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct to the Prime Minister a question which I think is of national interest?
Would the Prime Minister tell the house whether he intends to reconvene the house in February for a regular session, or rather, according to some rumours, to table a budget and announce a general election for next summer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister about a subject we were discussing a moment ago, and I am sure the Prime Minister will realize that it is appropriate for me to direct the question to him. Without prejudice to the possibility that we might yet deal with the labour code before the adjournment of this session, may we have an undertaking from the government that this legislation is to be enacted at this session, as far as the government is concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that certainly is our intention. I share the house leader's disappointment that we have not been able to deal with it during this part of the session before Christmas.
As the house leader has stated, representations in relation to this legislation are still being received. Delegations also are still being received. Other business has taken longer than we had expected and we have not been able to reach that business before Christmas. Certainly it is our intention to enact this legislation during this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask another question. Are we in this present position because of the time which has been taken up in this house on other matters, or because the government is not ready to proceed with the bill?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a lot of time has been taken up in the consideration of other very important national matters. We have received many more representations in relation to this labour code than we had expected. They are still being received from employees' unions and employers. This has required further consideration of some of the provisions of the legislation, but that consideration is just about completed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the one assurance we want from the Prime Minister is that the government is not getting cold feet about this legislation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, we are feeling pretty warm about this legislation, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So are we.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, do we have the agreement of the house on the two matters I raised, one regarding the five o'clock private members' hour and the other in respect of proceedings with the legislation on the Judges Act and the Combines Investigation Act, without prejudicing any rights under standing order 61?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that we adjourn today until February 16. It is my belief that to do so would mean that we will again not get a summer vacation next year unless we have an election. I am not running this government, but I am one of those who is insistent that we should strive toward arranging the business of this house so that we can have a holiday in July and August. It has been my opinion since I came to this house that we were supposed to have a vacation in July and August, and if we now propose to do something which will not work toward that end I cannot give unanimous consent. Surely we are all adult enough that we can arrange our business in such a way that we have a summer holiday. When the government asks for co-operation it must be prepared to give some assurance that it will co-operate in working toward this goal, which I am sure is desirable to every member of this house. This long holiday we are going to get in the wintertime means we cannot possibly have a summer vacation next year when it would be much more advantageous to our families than a winter vacation. So far as I am concerned, the government is either going to have to give some assurance in this regard or I will not be willing to consent to giving up private members' hour.


George James McIlraith: I hasten to assure the hon. member in this regard because one of the main reasons for choosing this date was in order to permit the government to have its legislation and the estimates ready for submission to the house when the house opens. If the hon. member was listening to my remarks this morning when we were discussing the matter of concurrence in a report concerning the standing orders and rules
Inquiries of the Ministry of the house he will have noted the reference to one item at least which I hope will make it possible for us, come next session, to have the kind of adjournment in the summer season that all of us wish, those on the government side equally with the hon. member.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if that is also his opinion? He has some say in this matter. I certainly would not be opposed to something unusual happening, but is it his opinion also that the fact that we have had a winter vacation will not be used to say that we have to spend the next 10 months in Ottawa on government business?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to assure my hon. friend that I share his opinion and that expressed by the house leader entirely with regard to this matter and I hope that next summer we will indeed have the kind of vacation which he has mentioned.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the adjournment of private members' business at five o'clock, I understand that the bill most likely to be called and with which I am ready to proceed is that under order No. 3 under public bills, an act to amend the Immigration Act, racial discrimination. I think it is a very important matter of legislation, but if the government will give consideration to making this amendment at some stage or other I will be very happy not to press it at five o'clock.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we will give it consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to say a word since the Solicitor General is not here, I spoke to the hon. member for Port Arthur about his bill which would have come up in the ordinary course and the Solicitor General told me that he would give an assurance to the house that the priorities of the bills as they now stood would, at the request of the government, remain as they are. I do not think the hon. gentleman would expect the government to make a decision like that without being able to consider the matter but I am sure it is a matter that would be considered.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I did not expect the government to give their approval now. What I did say was that if we are going to have an adjournment and if the bill in principle commends itself so much to reasonable people I

Judges Act
hope they will bring it in as their own legislation after the adjournment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I am anxious to consider practically anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the suspension of private members' hour from five to six?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister to consider private Bill No. C-48 while he is at it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Indeed I will, Mr. Speaker. JUDGES ACT



PROVISION FOR SALARIES OF ADDITIONAL JUDGES FOR MANITOBA AND QUEBEC

Guy Favreau: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend Bill C-112, an act to amend the Judges Act, now before the house, to authorize the provision of salaries for two additional judges of the Court of Queen's bench for Manitoba and to increase from three to five the number of additional judges of the superior court of Quebec for whom salaries may be authorized to be provided.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, it is
rather difficult to follow what the exact amendments are. What will be the increase in Manitoba? In the copy I have before me there is no reference to Manitoba.


Guy Favreau: No. The resolution now before the house purports to amend a bill, which on July 13 of this year received first reading, so as to provide for the addition of two judges in Manitoba.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Favreau, seconded by Mr. Pickersgill, moves that the said resolution be referred to committee of the whole on Bill C-112, an act to amend the Judges Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Guy Favreau: the second reading of Bill No. C-112, to amend the Judges Act.
[Mr. Brewin.l


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1.
Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Transport, to move the following amendment to Bill No. C-112:
That Bill C-112, an act to amend the Judges Act, be amended as follows:
(a)	by striking out clause 1 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
1.	Paragraph (e) of section 9 of the Judges Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(e) Seventy puisne judges of the Superior Court, each.. .21,000.00."
2.	Paragraph (d) of section 12 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(d) Seven puisne judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, each.. .21,000.00"; and
(b)	by renumbering clauses 2 and 3 thereof as clauses 3 and 4 respectively.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On the title.
John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, as a point of general interest, and I am asking for information only, this bill has to do with the salaries of judges.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, just the number.


Guy Favreau: The numbers. It does not change the salaries.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is just increasing the number of judges.


John (Jack) McIntosh: In the copy I have here it mentions set salaries of $16,000, $21,000 and so on. I want this information for information's sake only. The salaries judges get are either from their duties when acting as judges or as commissioners of inquiries. How are they paid when acting as commissioners of inquiries, and what are they paid?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, the salaries provided for in this bill are the ordinary prevailing salaries of judges, depending on their respective jurisdictions. There are provisions in the Judges Act which allow for authority to be given in certain circumstances to judges acting as commissioners. The practice is usually to pay a nominal per diem allowance, or other sort of allowance, by the authority retaining them as commissioners. The salaries provided in this bill are strictly

their salaries as judges, and I understand that in certain provinces, not all, judges in certain jurisdictions receive an indemnity from the province to perform certain services under specified provincial acts.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Angus MacLean: I just want to be clear that the amendment included the additional two judges for Manitoba?


Guy Favreau: Yes, it includes the additional two judges for the court of Queen's bench in Manitoba, as well as the two judges for Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To be clear, Mr. Chairman, should you not call clause 4 as well?


Guy Favreau: Clause 4 is contained in the amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the trouble which arose. Did you call clause 4, Mr. Chairman, or just clauses 1, 2, 3 and the title?


Lucien Lamoureux: I have just noticed the last paragraph of the amendment so I will now call clause 4.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the title carry?


Robert William Prittie: Just before the title carries I would like to express the thought which has been felt by many people from time to time, that some time we should investigate the means of appointing judges and perhaps look at the United Kingdom practice which is almost completely non-political.


John George Diefenbaker: No it is not.


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

Guy Favreau: the second reading of Bill No. C-141, to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there would be agreement if the minister would give a short word of explanation in connection with this bill.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, because of a situation which arose in B.C., in the case of a request under section 7 20220-717
Combines Investigation Act of the Combines Investigation Act, for an investigation into the operations and arrangements between fishermen and the purchasers and processors of fish in B.C., an amendment was made to the Combines Investigation Act providing for a moratorium during which the act would be deemed not to apply to those arrangements.
The moratorium was renewed and continued for further periods in 1960, 1961 and 1962. The last exemption by parliament in 1962 was for two years, to expire on December 31, 1964. Because of legal proceedings that have been taken against the restrictive trade practices commission and its members, which proceedings ended some time in 1962, the commission has not been in a position to send full notice to all the parties likely to be aggrieved by the proceedings and who ought to be heard, and it is not expected to be in a position to make a report for some time yet.
Furthermore, in the summer of 1963 there was a serious fishermen's strike, primarily over the minimum prices to be received by fishermen from the sale of fish. Arising out of this strike an intergovernmental committee, comprising federal and British Columbia civil servants, was appointed by the federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) and the British Columbia minister of labour to examine in detail the problems concerned with wage and price disputes in the British Columbia fishing industry and to submit to both governments recommendations of action necessary to minimize interruption of fishing operations in the future.
While I understand the committee is expected to submit its report shortly, it will be necessary to allow sufficient time for consideration to be given to the committee's recommendations and for a decision to be made concerning their implementation by either or both of the governments concerned.
It is considered, therefore, that the moratorium provision should be extended for a further 18 months, that is to June 30, 1966, by which time it is expected there will have been a full opportunity to assess any recommendations and to have taken what action, if any, is required.
With respect to the inquiry I might add that it is the view of the restrictive trade practices commission that before proceeding further with the matter it should know the committee's recommendations and any action to be taken arising out of these recommendations. Those are the reasons for the request to the house to extend for a further period of 18

Coynbines Investigation Act months the moratorium under the Combines Investigation Act.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his explanation. This is a matter which is of grave concern to the fishermen and the fishing industry of B.C., and had the minister not explained it I was going to point out this is something which was in a state of moratorium. Though I am quite willing to support early passage of the bill I think we should have some assurance that the present state of affairs, which I for one think is highly unsatisfactory, will not continue forever. I am reasonably satisfied with the statement made by the Minister of Justice and would be prepared to support the passage of the bill. However, I know that the Minister of Fisheries is interested in this matter and he may have some additional information he can give us. He may be able to tell us how soon he expects to have the information provided in the joint federal-provincial report which the Minister of Justice mentioned. If the Minister of Fisheries is in a position to make a statement to the house along these lines 1 for one would be interested to hear it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to state that the commission referred to by the Minister of Justice has completed its studies and submitted a preliminary report. This was about three weeks ago. We expect that the final report and recommendation will be ready early in the new year. This report will naturally have some bearing on a final decision with regard to this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Application of acts to fishing agreements.
Mr.   Patierson@: I do not intend to delay the committee but I would point out that the unions concerned with the various fishing agreements on the west coast are desirous of bringing legislation into line with the calendar year. It has been pointed out that this provision runs for 18 months and will expire in the middle of the calendar year. Does the minister feel convinced that before the date set out in this measure is reached he will be in a position to clarify the situation and put the legislation on a permanent basis?


Guy Favreau: I am confident this will be the case. Instead of providing for the mora-

torium to expire at the end of the calendar year we have provided for a period of 18 months to end on June 30, 1966, and the reason for this was twofold. First, it will undoubtedly cover the period of the arrangements relating to the two fishing seasons and, in the second place, it will in 1966 provide sufficient time to enact whatever complementary or remedial legislation will be necessary. In other words, the arrangements being made at the beginning of the fishing season it would have been not abnormal but unnecessary to let the moratorium go until the end of the year because in the meantime it would not have been possible to provide for remedial legislation. But in practice this covers the arrangements between the fishermen and the fish purchasers and processors both for 1965 and 1966.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Favreau: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TRANSFER TO PROVINCES OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SHARED PROGRAMS

Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure of an interim nature respecting certain conditional grant and shared cost programs that have become established federal-provincial programs to enable such of the provinces as may wish to do so to assume financial responsibility for such programs within the ambit of national objectives; and, in respect of those provinces that assume such responsibility for specific programs, to provide a tax abatement under the Income Tax Act, a tax equalization payment and, where necessary, an adjustment payment, or to provide a cash payment in lieu of a tax abatement for particular programs or as cash compensation in other cases; and to authorize such agreements as may be necessary to ensure that the continuation in the interim period of any such program by provinces with such federal assistance will accord with national objectives; and to provide for other related or incidental matters.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This resolution and the bill which will follow it concerns the important matter of federal-provincial shared cost programs. It is designed as a prelude to a thoroughgoing review of the role of shared cost programs in Canadian confederation-a review which has been agreed to by all of the provinces. This review, to be undertaken by the tax structure committee, must be both objective and dispassionate if it is to produce a long run approach to shared cost programs which will be acceptable both to this house and to all of the provinces.
Let me say a word about these shared cost programs and how they developed before elaborating upon the intent of this resolution.
The primary purpose of certain of the federal-provincial shared cost programs was to stimulate the development of national programs and to ensure to all Canadians an entitlement to certain basic services, regardless of residence. The major services involved are well known to all hon. members-the hospital insurance scheme, the old age assistance payments and other related welfare services, unemployment assistance payments to others who are unable to work and to those who are temporarily out of work or whose unemployment insurance benefits have expired; vocational training, and the basic health facilities that are being financed partly by national health grants.
The major purpose of other joint programs was to facilitate the achievement of national and regional economic goals, primarily high and stable rates of economic growth. Examples of these programs include ARDA, the trans-Canada highway, the winter works and the roads to resources programs.
Still other programs, the smaller ones, were designed to meet temporary or short run problems, such, for example, as the camp grounds and picnic areas program, or the spruce budworm control program.
Everyone recognizes that in meeting these primary goals, the shared cost programs resulted in a very substantial transfer of funds from the federal to the provincial governments. These transfers enabled the provinces to undertake programs which were in considerable public demand without the withdrawal of funds from other important areas of government such as education which would otherwise have been necessary.
I should note, Mr. Chairman, that not all of these programs were inspired by federal governments-many of them were urged by the provinces themselves. It remains true, how-20220-717i
Federal-Provincial Relations ever, that the federal government has an interest in the shared cost programs; it is to be found in the broad national purpose which could be served by the establishment of certain Canada-wide programs, and in the transfer of funds to the provinces and municipalities.
It must be acknowledged immediately that the largest of these programs could be implemented only through legislative and administrative action on the part of the provinces-action which falls clearly within provincial jurisdiction. Some joint programs, it is true, were concerned with matters of concurrent jurisdiction-notably agriculture-and some of them were concerned with economic growth and development, an area in which federal initiative is generally acknowledged. But many of the programs, indeed, as I say, the largest of them, required the kind of legislative and administrative action which is within provincial domain.
Since the war we have seen a very substantial growth in these conditional grants. In 1945 about $50 million per year was being transferred to the provinces by means of these shared cost programs; by 1964 this figure had reached $903 million. In a period of 20 years the total is approaching 20 times the 1945 figure. When such transfers of funds reach these proportions it is time to re-examine the role and the purpose of shared cost programs. This is all the more so when one considers that unconditional payments to the provinces, namely equalization and fiscal adjustment payments, now constitute only about one third of the conditional payments. Yet it is through these very equalization payments that we can now overcome the unequal fiscal capacity of the provinces which contributed to the rapid extension of conditions grants.
The second reason for re-examining the role of shared cost programs in Canada flows from the first. Having overcome the most serious deficiencies in the fiscal capacity of the provinces, and given the vast improvement which has occurred in the staffing and the technology within provincial governments, the case for continued federal participation in joint programs is not nearly as strong as it once seemed to be. I think all the provinces recognize these changes; but Quebec in particular perceives that the equalization of provincial fiscal capacity now makes feasible a point of view which has tended to be argued in the past in theoretical terms: the discharge of provincial responsibilities without the degree of federal intervention that has

Federal-Provincial Relations come to prevail-and come to prevail, I should add, in the post-war years. Quebec notes that shared cost programs as they have been used, however, have involved the continuing and the growing intervention of the federal government into matters which lie within provincial jurisdiction. This view is held honestly and firmly, and I think everyone must agree that when such a large proportion of Canadians come to share this view -and of course they are not confined to the province of Quebec-it is time to re-examine the intergovernmental arrangements which are in question.
There is a third reason for re-examining the role of shared cost programs in Canadian confederation. It is this: The primary purpose of many existing conditional grants may already have been accomplished. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when hospital insurance has been established across Canada, that when old age assistance payments are being made across this nation, that when unemployment assistance is available to all Canadians, the prime purpose of these conditional grants may well have been achieved. These programs have been established and are not likely to be revoked. We want to assure, of course, that the benefits remain portable or, to put it another way, that barriers are not erected so that the citizen loses his rights to these services when he moves across provincial borders. But I think all the provinces accept this principle and would be quite prepared to maintain such important elements of nation-wide orograms without the application of federal sanctions. This, then, is the third reason we feel it is time to re-examine the role of shared cost programs-their very maturity.
The fourth reason for re-examining federal-provincial shared cost programs is related both to their maturity and to the magnitude they have reached in terms of dollars. It has long been argued that he who spends should be the one required to tax. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said in 1905 that "it is a sound principle of finance and a still sounder principle of government that those who have the duty of expending the revenue of a country should also be saddled with the responsibility of levying and providing it".


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: My hon. friend will find that quotation in the House of Commons Debates for February 21, 1905, if he is interested. In 1940 the Rowell-Sirois commission repeated this view. Obviously one cannot press this

principle to its ultimate conclusion without eliminating equalization payments, but I think it is fair to argue that once shared cost programs have accomplished their initial purpose they should be reviewed with this principle in mind.
For these reasons the government of Canada has agreed that there should be a review of the role of shared cost programs in Canadian confederation. All provincial governments have agreed with this view. In consequence the tax structure committee has been assigned the task, as has already been reported, of studying the future role of shared cost programs in Canada. Its recommendations will be submitted to the federal-provincial conference; but this review will take at least a year and a half.
In the interval it seemed that some positive indication of the possibilities open to Canadian governments was called for. Consequently, the Prime Minister offered to the provinces on August 15 an alternative approach to shared cost programs, this alternative to prevail during the interim period while the tax structure committee conducts its studies. For the major programs involved- hospitalization, welfare programs, vocational training and health grants-this alternative will enable the province to tax their own citizens to pay for these major continuing shared cost programs with the federal government providing related equalization payments. The province in turn would agree to maintain the programs in their present form during the interim period. The provisions of the bill will apply for an interim period only.
I have deliberately refrained from enunciating at this time any government position on the role of shared cost programs in the long run. I think the reason for this will be obvious. The federal government has undertaken to discuss this question with the provinces, who are as much concerned with it as are we in this parliament, and we want to approach these discussions with an open mind and without- having made our position clear or definite in advance. My hope is that hon. members will have an opportunity to consider this important issue carefully when the bill receives first reading and becomes available for study. We can then debate it fully when it reaches the stage of second reading.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most important matters that will come before parliament, and the fact that it is being brought in in the last minutes of the last hour does not render it any less signif-

icant. Indeed, I am surprised that this question, important as it is to Canadian confederation, was not brought before the house earlier so that it could be given the careful consideration which the nature and importance of the matter deserves.
While the Minister of Finance has emphasized the fact that this is in the nature of an interim measure, the government of Canada has not enunciated or declared its policy, nor does it intend to at the moment. None the less the experience of the past has been that the things which have been interim and introduced as such have ultimately in many cases become the permanent course of action. Indeed, the pathways of experiment often become the highways of experience. For that reason this matter and its importance should have been discussed at very considerable length. Several of my colleagues would have dealt with the matter, to the end that the substantial changes inherent in the ideas which have been expressed by the government concerning some of the provinces receive the examination by parliament which would assure that what is being done here, when it is done, is to the advantage of Canada, and that it is strengthening rather than weakening confederation.
I want to have the assurance of the minister that in the event that this resolution is passed-and in order to preserve our rights we intend to pass it on division-no action will be taken by the federal government during the months intervening between the present and the resumption of debate and final decision on the matter by any of the provinces of Canada. In other words, what is done by the passage of this interim resolution is not to be considered as a determination made by the house.
We think that this matter is one on which there is widespread division of opinion. In outlining the circumstances of this matter the minister rather glossed over the situation. I think he did so intentionally so as to indicate that there are four or five arguments in favour of action being taken and that the position of the government, while not determined upon finally, might receive the support of this house; and then later on the membership of this house would be faced by an accomplished fact.
How far are we going to go in this direction? Are we, in accepting the generality of the idea of opting out, actually opting ourselves out of nationhood? This is a viewpoint which is being expressed in increasing measure. When this matter is placed alongside
Federal-Provincial Relations certain other plans of the government, when one sees the changes that are taking place or are anticipated or expected, and in view of the leadership which this government has given in certain directions, there are many Canadians who are wondering whether or not this is one measure, when taken in conjunction with others, has not got as its purpose ominous portents for national unity.
I have before me an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Province for October 2 last in which this view is set forth. The view of this newspaper is that the clock is being turned back. The editorial goes on to say:
The provinces want to opt out of shared revenues and shared responsibilities. If they are not careful they may arrive at a time when there is nothing left from which to opt out.
It concludes with these words:
If there is strength in unity it is, perhaps, ironical that just as Canada is about to commemorate its centennial the government should be passing legislation which may prove to be a major step toward the eventual disintegration of confederation.
That is a viewpoint which is being expressed across this nation.
We want to look carefully into this matter, Mr. Chairman. We want to make our position clear so that no one will misunderstand it, and that the fact we are considering today the passage of this resolution shall in no way be interpreted as approval of the course which this government has in mind. The aim and purpose of the fathers of confederation was to bring about a united nation. The fathers of confederation did not believe in a Canada of two nations. They did not accept the principle of a state within a state. They did not accept the principle that the provinces, or any of them, might become associate states. The principles of Macdonald and Cartier and of all succeeding prime ministers up to the present Prime Minister followed the course throughout the years which was in keeping with the abiding principle upon which confederation was built. The expression "The building of one Canada" is not a new one, nor is it a new thought. It was the aim and purpose of the fathers of confederation that we should indeed be one nation, with our constitutional rights assured, predicted and preserved. We in the Conservative party went further than did the Liberal government of 1945 to 1949 when we insisted that our constitutional rights must remain inviolate, and that they could not be changed excepting by unanimous agreement not only

Federal-Provincial Relations
of the federal parliament but also of each and every province in Canada.
We want carefully to examine legislation which would allow a wholesale opting out; not an opting out on matters, constitutionally and necessarily so, within the jurisdiction of the provinces, such as education, but the whole field mentioned by the minister, such as ARDA, roads to resources, the trans-Canada highway and the like. We want to be assured that in any scheme to permit of a wholesale opting out we are not taking a step which will ultimately lead to the fragmentation of this nation and the deconfederation of our country.
Having said that, without going into great detail at this time, I conclude by saying that this is not as casual a matter as the minister has suggested in the statement he read to the house. This is one of the most serious matters which should and must receive consideration of parliament and of the provinces. Steps such as this, in order to achieve immediate purposes, are dangerous unless there is a most careful scrutiny and examination made to assure that in the years ahead the acceptance of the general principle of opting out by provinces will not lead to the creation in this country of a series of associated states, as it were; a culmination which I am sure none of us desires, because it would only lead to the weakening of national unity and a denial of the abiding purposes upon which confederation was envisaged, and finally consummated.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, while it is not possible
to be sure what is intended by the legislation which is to come before us, I must say that I was somewhat disturbed by the minister's statement this afternoon, because it appears to bear out the anxiety I expressed some weeks, or possibly months ago, when I raised a question in the house about a speech made in Montreal by one of the minister's colleagues, the Secretary of State, which appeared to me to be an invitation to all the demands for fiscal decentralization.
At that time, the Secretary of State assured me that that was not his intention, and he very kindly provided me with the text of his speech in both French and English; and while there was nothing in that speech that one could definitely point to as an acceptance of even greater decentralization, the whole tone of it appeared to me to be in that direction.
This afternoon the minister has suggested the areas in which more decentralization should take place. In fact, he appeared to be of the opinion that when we have old age

pensions, unemployment insurance and hospitalization across the country, we have pretty well completed the purposes of federal participation. It seems to me, sir, that there are some fundamental economic principles and fundamental national principles involved.
I was not impressed with the minister's quotation, that he who spends should be made to tax, which appears to me to be a clear statement of the government's desire to escape any odium by raising funds in an area in which it is not going to itself directly disperse them. That does not seem to me to be a very responsible attitude for a government of Canada.
I am concerned principally, however, Mr. Chairman, with the danger that I see resulting from a too far reaching program of decentralization, such as was outlined by the minister this afternoon-a danger to our federal control of the economy and monetary system. I have in mind the very close relationship which has grown up, and is now acknowledged by most people, between the federal government in this case, through national government bond issues, and national government fiscal powers and control over the monetary system. They are linked inseparably together, and in my view the government will have to be very careful as to how far it goes in the process of divesting itself of the fiscal power which will be required in order that it may fulfil its functions of controlling and managing the monetary system of our country.
The minister also made mention of conditional grants. I think this is an area where there should be some reform take place. These grants should perhaps be made on a much wider basis than they are at the present time, and I have in mind, for instance, grants that are made for hospital construction. It may very well be that in one province or other there happens to be at a particular time no current need for further hospital beds, but very urgent needs for other health services, perhaps in the way of cancer research or cancer treatment, or various medical projects of that sort.
As things stand at the present, of course the provincial governments cannot divert conditional grants made in regard to hospital construction to another purpose. I think it would be the better part of wisdom to make these conditional grants on a much wider basis, and base this decentralization of administration on that principle. I think it might well be quite dangerous to permit more and

more of the taxing powers in this country to devolve on the provincial government.
The minister made mention of the Rowell-Sirois commission. I have a very clear memory of that because I was sitting on the opposite side of the question in the provincial legislature. I remember the discussions that took place at that time about the transfer of fiscal powers from the provinces to the federal government. A great many fears were expressed as to the ultimate result of that transfer. I doubt whether anybody looking back over the history of the past 20 years could have any doubt that that was a move in the right direction, and if we consider what its specific and urgent purpose was, I think we will see how extremely important this division of fiscal powers is. It was, of course, brought on under the approaching pressures of war, which required a tremendous federal-national program of development. In order that we could have a national program of development for military purposes it was necessary to transfer many of the fiscal powers to the federal government.
I submit, sir, that we have today no less an urgent need for an overriding national economic development than we had in the 1940's when we were faced with that military situation, and for the government to divest itself of the powers which will be required in order to direct and stimulate that economic development at this time, seems to me to be extremely shortsighted. I hope that the tax structure committee in its examination of the tax structure of this country will bear these matters in mind and will not be too concerned about assuaging the local ambitions of provincial governments. I have on more than one occasion suggested that this problem of the provinces versus the federal government has been, as it is today, oversimplified.
We are being asked to believe that there is only one province in Canada which is engaged in these pressures for disintegration, if you like. Whereas it is perfectly obvious that this is an apparent characteristic of powerful provincial governments. Alongside that, if you are looking for separatists it is no good just looking over the Ottawa river. We should also look over the Rocky mountains. Indeed you may look also closer at hand. We have a very clear warning coming from Toronto these days that the Ontario government is getting all set to torpedo the national pension plan.


An hon. Member:: The Christmas spirit.
Federal-Provincial Relations


Colin Cameron: No Christmas spirit there. It is not Christmas day yet. These are dangerous trends in the country and they should be resisted in spite of a possible loss of favour among certain provincial potentates. I believe that today more than ever before there is a necessity for a national plan and a national purpose in the development of our country which can only be carried out if the federal government reserves to itself and retains adequate fiscal powers that will enable it to do so. I am extremely uneasy about the suggestions that have been made this afternoon by the minister. I can only hope my uneasiness may be allayed when I see the legislation, but I have very grave doubts in that regard.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, we listened with interest to the Minister of Finance when he spoke on the resolution respecting this measure of an interim nature dealing with certain conditional grants and shared cost programs. I am going to be as brief as possible and yet convey some of our thinking to the Minister of Finance in this regard.
He said first of all, I believe, that all of the provinces have agreed to review these shared cost programs, that this was being done through the tax study committee and that they were basically in agreement with the opting out provisions contained in the resolution. I think he could probably have been considerably more accurate if he had stated that in so far as the provinces are concerned there is unanimity respecting the matter of basic services, that all of the provinces have agreed that this is a proper area for the federal government to be in and that even though these services may fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces there should be minimum basic services in a number of the fields that the Minister of Finance suggested.
But when it comes to the matter of some of the formulas that have been concocted recently to distribute the tax revenue to pay for these shared cost programs there is vigorous disagreement. We in this party believe that there is a great need today for this kind of review. We also believe that along with such a review certain constitutional amendments should be made which would redefine and redelineate areas of responsibility. We in this party are becoming very concerned about the growth of a fourth level of government and the importance being placed on it. I refer to dominion-provincial conferences.

Federal-Provincial Relations
We believe we have almost reached the stage where a great deal of the authority in administering our national affairs has been taken away from the House of Commons. Whenever the government of the day raises in this chamber any matter that could have some overtones with regard to provincial jurisdiction the first question that is raised is: Have you cleared it with the provinces?
I think this is an unhealthy situation that is developing.
The Minister of Finance said that since the war there has been a substantial growth in shared cost programs. The reason this has happened is that the federal government has not been willing to vacate or even partially yield some of the tax fields they took over from the provinces during the war years. In addition, the major growth of government expenditure has been in those areas assigned exclusively to the provinces under the constitution. I do not quarrel with that.
I think the people have a right to have growth and expansion in those services they desire. In other words, they have a right to the results they want from the administration of their affairs and if it happens that the desire has been for expansion of services that were within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, then I accept that. But what I do not accept is the fact that the federal government has not been willing to turn over these tax fields to the provinces so they could accept and discharge their responsibilities.
Another great problem that has led up to the situation in which we find ourselves today is the fact that all federal political parties have made campaign promises on matters exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. When the party elected to office attempts to keep these promises it finds itself in the situation where it has to negotiate with the provincial governments to find out whether it can undertake these things.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is one other thing about which we in this party are very disturbed, and we can see the kind of legislation that will follow this resolution, further aggravating the situation. I refer to the business of concocting formulas to meet a predetermined figure in dealing with the sharing of revenue. I am happy that the Minister of Finance referred to that famous quotation from Hansard of 1905 where it was said that the responsibility for collecting revenue must rest with the spending authority. This cannot be done completely and I realize that perhaps it would not be desirable


to have different levels of personal income tax throughout the country, but I do think there should be some kind of fixed formula for the disbursement of revenue to the provinces.
We know, for example, that in the equalization payments certain factors are found in the formula that result in an unequal distribution of money. The province of Alberta has justifiably complained about the inclusion of half of the revenue from natural resources. I do not want to go into that subject deeply again because I am sure the Minister of Finance is quite familiar with the injustice of the inclusion of that factor in the tax equalization formula.
We also believe that the central government must maintain exclusive authority in certain areas and we certainly hope that the resolution and the bill to follow will not lead to a situation that will weaken the central government at a time when it needs to be strengthened. I am not one of those who believe in complete centralization and complete authority resting in the federal government in all fields but I think there are certain areas where the federal government needs to maintain its exclusive authority to the extent that it is not negotiable with the provinces at all. Otherwise we are always going to find ourselves in the situation of having to negotiate so-called political bargains with regard to the distribution of the tax dollars collected by the federal government.
We are not going to oppose the resolution, Mr. Chairman, or carry on the debate at any length today but we have certain reservations about this matter. In particular, we believe that the jurisdictions of the two levels of government should be redefined and that we should make sure that the federal government does not begin to move into provincial jurisdiction again as much as they have in the past, which in fact has led up to the situation that we face today.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter which I think I should clear up. The Leader of the Opposition in the course of his -I hope he won't think I am being offensive-refreshingly brief remarks said he would like an assurance from the minister that if the resolution is passed no action will be taken in the intervening months until the bill can be dealt with. Naturally, as I am sure he knows, I cannot give him that assurance. If the resolution is passed the provinces will be entitled to operate, as I think they are anyway, on the basis of the letters

from the Prime Minister, so far as deductions are concerned.
These changes will go into effect on January 1. Naturally, if the bill should not be passed by parliament adjustments will have to be made.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I was quite prepared to discuss this resolution in detail but we are having the same treatment as last year when they brought in the C.B.C. estimates in the last hour of the last day of the year. In this resolution the expression is used, "that it is expedient to introduce a measure of an interim nature respecting certain conditional grant and shared cost programs." Would the minister be kind enough to state that when the bill comes down we will have time to discuss it in detail?
Order No. 2 on the order paper deals with the O'Leary report. This was introduced in the house on March 11 and a number of us have been waiting with interest for it to come up for discussion. Could the minister tell the committee-you ask me why I don't ask him privately, but I would like to have it on public record-at what time the bill might be brought up for discussion? Will it be nine months from now, as is the case with the O'Leary report introduced on March 11, or will it be introduced shortly after we reassemble on February 16?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If the members of the committee would bear with me and permit me to answer the question I would be glad to do so. It would be my hope it would be one of the first items to be dealt with after we reassemble.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I report the resolution?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.
Resolution reported and concurred in, on division.
Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-142, respecting the operation of certain established federal-provincial programs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, and bill read the first time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the said bill be read a second time? By leave now?
The Royal Assent


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Next sitting of the house.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: May I
have the indulgence of the house to read the following communication which has been addressed to the Speaker of the House of Commons:
Ottawa, December 18, 1964
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 18th December, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General FINANCE



AMENDMENT OF ACTS ADMINISTERED IN INSURANCE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House in committee of the whole on Bill C-123, an act to amend certain acts administered in the Department of Insurance-The Minister of Finance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Mr. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Mcllraith, moves that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on the said bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, what stage are we at now? I am afraid we have not followed you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is order No. 76.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let us have a clear understanding. We have a few minutes left but this is a very long bill with 43 clauses and amendments thereto, and there was no agreement that we would deal with it this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Absolutely not.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It was dealt with by the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us take the labour code instead.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Perhaps I might explain that this bill was referred to the banking and commerce committee after second reading. I indicated that I hoped the committee would favourably consider four amendments of
11344	HOUSE OF
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act substance. The committee has now held its sessions. It has recommended the amendments that I suggested earlier, and one other one of a minor character, and it is reporting back to the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it would be unwise for us to rush through a bill as important as this and as lengthy, despite the considerations of the committee. There are certain amendments which have to be looked at and the house would make itself look ridiculous if it pushed through a bill of this character in two or three minutes. We are not opposed to considering one or two other items if they are short and non-controversial.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could clarify the matter. We are quite agreeable to this not being proceeded with but I want to clear up one small matter. It is on the list I provided the house leader of the official opposition, but in any event we are quite content not to proceed with it now. It would be agreeable to us to call order No. 7 which I think is a bill of a nature that is not controversial, dealing with the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house agree that it be deemed order No. 76 has not been read?	.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MERCHANT SEAMEN COMPENSATION ACT


George James McIlraith: the second reading of Bill No. C-131, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where is the minister in charge?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: You are speaking from a good position over there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shouldn't the hon. member be in his right seat?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where is the Minister of Labour?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Since the sittings of the house were out of order for such long periods today at the earlier stages I thought it would be more convenient to conduct the proceedings from one of the seats on the front bench.


In the absence of the minister, who is receiving a delegation today, I have been asked to proceed with this measure. While it does not seem to be one of exceeding importance it does have the effect of paying compensation primarily to the widows and dependants of merchant seamen who lost their lives in the performance of their duties. Because these accidents took place some years ago the rate of compensation is of course not in line with present practices and payments.
On the resolution stage the minister made a somewhat lengthy statement and of course I have a rather lengthy prepared statement here this afternoon. But understanding that the house wishes to proceed as rapidly as possible with these various measures I thought a short summary might be aceptable. The bill applies to no more than 2,300 seamen who are not otherwise covered by provincial statutes. The adjustments to be made will be made through the consolidated revenue fund as is the common practice under provincial statutes but with the adjustments in the future being paid by the employer. The measure provides for the raising of the age limit with respect to payments to dependants between 18 and 21 years of age having regard to the practice in other spheres of jurisdiction and to the policy of the government to keep chidren and youths in school as long as they are able to absorb the training open to them. For these reasons the payments will be extended to 21 years if the dependant remains in a recognized institution of learning.
During the resolution stage the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) inquired why the rates of which benefits are paid are not more in line with those in existence on the west coast. It should be pointed out that this legislation does not affect seamen on the west coast. In any event I believe the amendments do bring the basis upon which compensation is paid up to $5,000 from $4,500, which is in line with the provisions of provincial statutes. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) was concerned that there seemed to be relatively few who were receiving permanent partial disability payments. This is because of the sad fact that most of the permanent disability payments are on behalf of dependants of seamen who lost their lives during the performance of their duties. There are I believe some five seamen receiving permanent partial disability or total disability payments.

The waiting period has been reduced from four days to three days and burial allowance has been raised from $200 to $300.
In the absence of any assurance as to when this legislation would come before the house we did not make arrangements for any officials to be here. However, I would be prepared to answer to the best of my ability any questions which members may wish to raise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As far as we are concerned, we have studied this bill and approved of it and are prepared to pass it; we will not ply the parliamentary secretary with questions which he may not be able to answer.
The amendment proposed here appear to be sensible amendments and if they meet the requirements of the merchant seamen then, of course, they should go through the house. To the extent that provision is being made for widows and dependant children, we are entirely in agreement with the idea. As far as our party is concerned we are prepared to accept this bill and proceed with it right away.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND HUNGARY

George James McIlraith: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the trade agreement between Canada and the Hungarian People's Republic, signed at Ottawa, June 11, 1964, and laid before the House of Commons on June 11, 1964; and that this house do approve the same.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader one question. I have no objection to this resolution, but are there any bills which are short and with which it is necessary that we deal before this house adjourns? Are there any such bills that required to be dealt with now?


George James McIlraith: I believe not, Mr. Speaker. There are a couple of other bills that I mentioned in the list given the other day, but
Trade Agreements
there has been some question about taking them now. For that reason I was asked to have called the items concerned with the approval of trade agreements.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, if I may interpose here, it is my understanding that Bill No. C-137 is essential. This is the C.N.R. financing and guarantee act.


George James McIlraith: There was an agreement about that.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I may have been out of the house at the time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George James McIlraith: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the protocol renewing the trade agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, signed on February 29, 1956, and renewed on April 18, 1960, signed at Ottawa September 16,	1963, laid before the House of
Commons on October 9, 1963; and that this house do approve the same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George James McIlraith: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the trade agreement between Canada and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed at Ottawa, October 8, 1963, and laid before the House of Commons on October 21, 1963; and that this house do approve the same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may we now
suspend the sitting until the bells ring?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the consent of the house to revert to motions in order to table documents that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) undertook to table earlier today. One was a letter from the Prime Minister to his cabinet colleagues. This was referred to in the early part of today's proceedings and the Prime Minister undertook to table it. If I receive consent to revert to motions for that purpose, I will table this document.
The other material that I will table is correspondence that passed between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). There was a letter from the Prime Minister dated December 14,

House of Commons
a reply dated December 15, with certain enclosures, and attached to that is the envelope in which the reply came.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could take advantage of the good nature of the house, in this interval while we are awaiting a call from the other place for royal assent, to extend on my own behalf and on behalf of the government the good wishes of the season to the staff of the House of Commons. Unlike many of my predecessors who have done this in the past, I do not propose to single them out by groups or categories, because I have found that on every occasion on which that has been done in the past one particular group or category has been overlooked. This has never failed in all the years these good wishes have been expressed. Therefore I would content myself with expressing good wishes for a very happy Christmas and good health and prosperity in the new year to all the members of the staff who make the work of this place possible. I am sure I express the wishes of all hon. members in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: I should also like, on my own behalf and on behalf of the government,
to extend the good wishes of the season to all hon. members, and the hope that they will have a good Christmas with their families. I say that with some feeling for all hon. members in this house, because it has been an extraordinary session in that hon. members have been kept away from friends in their constituencies for a very long time, and have been kept away, in all too many cases, from their own families for too long a time this year. Mr. Speaker, while I have looked forward very much to this Christmas recess, I am sure that hon. members who have been separated from their families have looked forward to it even more. Therefore I would like to extend to them and their families the very good wishes of the season and for a very quick reunion with their families in order that they may celebrate the Christmas season together.
I should also like, if I may, to express a little of my own feeling, namely the hope that the adjournment will provide an opportunity for hon. members to have some rest and an opportunity to get that necessary degree of objectivity into our thoughts again before the session reconvenes so that we will come back here refreshed, rested and with the

kind of approach to our problems that I am sure we should all have.
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure how one does this, but I should like to express best wishes to His Honour the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the chairman of committees. Without more ado, I wish one and all a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Some hen. Members: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the government house leader in expressing our good wishes to Mr. Speaker, his associates and all the people who serve the House of Commons so well. I would like to be as objective as the house leader; in fact, I thought we were always showing objectivity around here. If this were not 5.30 on Friday afternoon, December 18, on the 214th day of the session, I might attempt an eloquent speech in praise of the government house leader. But I have energy enough left only to wish him a merry Christmas; and as far as the new year is concerned, I wish him continued happiness in his private life and the strength to endure his public responsibilities.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it is fitting and proper to join with the house leader in his remarks regarding the staff. It seems to me that the staff has carried a burden because of our presence here for such a continuous length of time. Each of us sees only certain facets of the operation. Along the corridor from me is the Hansard index branch, where I have frequently seen people working overtime in the evenings. I realize the strain that particular branch of the staff of the House of Commons has been under and I imagine it applies throughout. I think we should not only give them our best wishes but also extend them something of an apology for the session we have had, which has put this particular load upon them. Most of them, of course, have borne it very well.
I am afraid I am not so much in the Christmas spirit that I am going to accept the remarks of the house leader to the effect that we will return after our break with some kind of renewed objectivity. It seems to me as this part of the session was coming to an end that we were finally becoming objective; that we were finally getting the measure of this government and just how good or bad it is. But I am leading into political activities and I suggest to the house leader and the members across the way

that if they want to close this part of the session with a smile they should take a look at tonight's Toronto Star and the wonderful cartoon by Duncan Macpherson. If they do that they will leave here with probably a feeling of amusement which is shared by the members on the opposite side of the house.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I should like on behalf of the Social Credit party to join the expressions of good will to all members of the staff, to all members of parliament representing their constituencies and also to all those people they represent. At this time I remember the words of one delegate to the commonwealth parliamentary association from Western Samoa, when he rose to take part in discussions recently held in Jamaica. He said that they had a custom in his country which he felt he ought to follow, and that was first of all to give thanks to our Heavenly Father for his goodness. I bring that in just to remind us all that in the midst of all the festivities and the joy and hilarity of this season it would do us well to remember the real purpose and significance of this season, which is remembering the goodness of God. So as I say, we join in expressing good wishes to all who have served us and who do serve us so well in this house, as well as to each and every member of parliament and to the people of Canada.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, being at this moment the only French Canadian on the opposition side of the house I wonder if, on behalf of the hon. members from Quebec, I may extend their very best wishes to every member of this house. I should also like to extend my very best regards to the Chair and to those who have occupied it since the beginning of this session. I think they have done a tremendous job because the work load put upon them was heavy. Even though during the course of debates we may have been divided on many occasions, and in certain cases accusations have been made against some people in Quebec, I can say for sure that all of us together at this time of year would like to forget about our divisions so that we can extend to each other our best wishes for a happy Christmas and a happy new year.

I should like to add that the French Canadian members have certainly appreciated, up to a point, the way in which debates have taken place in this house during the year. We appreciate the gains and progresses made,
Business of the House
not only for the French Canadian group, but also the English Canadian group, in short for all Canadians across the land.
I can, on closing, but express the hope and the wish that the year 1965, which will see us all, I hope, together again in early February, will bring more progress and less discussion of the type that creates division.
My very best wishes to one and all on behalf of all my French speaking colleagues in the opposition.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy
Council): Mr. Speaker, may I have unanimous consent to put the formal motion for adjournment at this point? I move, seconded by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught):
That, when this house adjourns this day, it stands adjourned until the 16th day of February, 1965, at 2.30 o'clock p.m., provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
In the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, prepared to support tbis motion, and I do not wish to detract from the things which have been said in the spirit of the season we are about to enter. Nevertheless before this motion does carry I feel I must register our protest at this part of the session being adjourned without our having completed a very important piece of legislation. The government, of course, knows what I have in mind, because we had something to say about it earlier this afternoon. I refer, indeed, to the Canada labour code.
I should like to remind the government that when this session met first, ten months ago today, the proposed labour code was an important item in the speech from the throne. Two days later the Prime Minister spoke in this house and indicated, on February 20, the priorities in the view of the government for this session.
It is interesting to recall the first three items on that priority list. Number one was the Canada pension plan, No. 2 was the

Business of the House
student loan legislation, and No. 3 was the Canada labour code. Here we are, ten months later adjourning, and only one of those three first items has been enacted by parliament.
As the session went on we were given commitments that the labour code would be brought in by certain dates. Then we were given a firm commitment that it would be enacted before we broke off for the Christmas recess.
We are aware of the explanations given today by the house leader and by the Prime Minister, but we can hardly be blamed if we are a bit suspicious as to whether or not this legislation will get through during this session. It has been promised for years. It was the subject of a firm commitment this session, and for that part of this session before Christmas. We have now had to accept another commitment, namely that this government hopes that it will be passed before the session really ends, whether that is in February or March.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we are ready to accept this motion. As a matter of fact we are glad the government is not asking that parliament be prorogued at this time but is merely seeking to adjourn it so that items such as the Canada pension plan and the Canada labour code can be concluded before this session ends, and we call upon the government to make absolutely sure that these commitments are not broken. With that understanding we are prepared to support the motion.
I am sorry I had to break into the kind of thing that was being said a few moments ago, because, like all of us in this house, I too share in the hope that everyone will enjoy a happy Christmas season and that we will have a productive and useful 1965.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a few minutes left while we wait for the signal from the other place, and I should like to draw to the attention of the members of this house once again the 15th report which was tabled in this house on Monday of this week. I ask hon. members to study it very carefully particularly those members of the government who will have to bring forward legislation to give effect to some of the recommendations which have been made.
If we can adopt most or all of the recommendations contained in this report we will not again have a situation developing such as we have just been through. There is provision in the report for detailed and exhaustive study of the estimates. If the estimates can be considered and passed early in a session, that will preclude the need for interim supply motions and things of that nature.
This would also accomplish one other important thing which has been pointed up during the long months of this session. The adoption of this report would provide one week out of five during which the members of this house could attend to their business in their constituencies. This would not only add to the efficiency and effectiveness of parliament, but add greatly to the effectiveness of democracy.
Certainly after having spent month after month in Ottawa, in some cases hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the people we represent, it is not possible to reflect accurately the opinions of those people in this house. There ought to be some practical time when a member can be available to his constituents to meet with them so as to be able to represent their feelings in this house.
In conclusion I make a last minute appeal to hon. members to give very serious consideration to these recommendations so that they can be dealt with at the end of this session, in order that they may become effective for the next session. If this report dies when this session is prorogued we will not then have the necessary amendments to the standing orders and other procedure so that the next session can be conducted in an orderly and businesslike fashion.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Judges Act.
An act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
Motion (Mr. Mcllraith) agreed to, and the house adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
The North Atlantic council met in ministerial session in Paris on 15th, 16th and 17th December, 1964.
2.	Ministers surveyed the whole field of east-west relations. The basic causes of tension still persist, and will persist as long as it remains the aim of the communist countries to extend their system to the whole world. Ministers noted that recent developments in China and the Soviet union have increased the uncertainties with which the world is faced. They reiterated their conviction that it remained essential for the alliance to maintain and strengthen its unity.
3.	Ministers also reviewed the situation in various areas in Asia, Africa and Latin America. They reaffirmed their interest in the stability of these areas and in the economic and social welfare of the peoples concerned.
4.	In their discussions on the state and future progress of the alliance, ministers emphasized the importance of strengthening and deepening their political consultation. Recognizing the challenges that may face the organization in the years ahead, they directed the council in permanent session to study the state of the alliance and the purposes and objectives commonly accepted by all members, and to keep ministers informed.
5.	Ministers reaffirmed their determination to continue their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the questions at issue between east and west. In particular, they continue to attach great importance to making progress toward meeting the legitimate aspirations of the German people to reunification on the basis of their right to self determination. In regard to Berlin, ministers confirmed the terms of their declaration of 16th December, 1958.
6.	Ministers expressed their conviction that the unity and military preparedness of the alliance had safeguarded peace and preserved the freedom of the west in the past. So long as general and complete disarmament under effective international control has not been achieved, any weakening of the allied defensive posture would expose the alliance to increased pressures. Ministers therefore stressed the importance of maintaining the cohesion of member states in the strategic as well as the political field. Only a military structure demonstrably capable of swift and vigorous reaction to any aggression can meet the threat. To maintain such a structure, involving as it does a continuous adaptation to changing requirements, necessitates a persistent effort to improve the readiness, state of training, and equipment of the forces of the alliance. It further requires a sound economic basis for the defence effort and the most rational use of available resources.
7.	Ministers also confirmed their determination to continue their efforts to arrive at agreements in the field of disarmament. In this connection, they stressed the importance of avoiding the dissemination of nuclear weapons.
8.	Ministers examined the problems confronting the alliance in the field of conventional and nuclear weapons. A thorough exchange of views on these problems took place and will be continued.
9.	Ministers took note of developments in the studies of the interrelated questions of strategy, force requirements and resources, initiated in pursuance of the decisions taken at their meeting in Ottawa in May 1963. They reaffirmed the significance they attached to these studies and instructed the council in permanent session to continue them with the assistance of the NATO military authorities.
10.	Ministers also considered the special military and economic problems of Greece and Turkey. They reaffirmed the need for accelerating the economic development of these two allied countries, and for an effort to strengthen the defence of the southeastern region of NATO. They instructed the council in permanent session to continue to examine these questions urgently.
11.	In the spirit of previous resolutions on defence aid to Greece in 1963 and 1964, ministers established a procedure aimed at contributing to the solution of the special defence problems of Greece and Turkey in 1965.
12.	With regard to Greek-Turkish relations, ministers heard a report by the secretary general on the "watching brief" conferred on his.
[Stage Direction]
predecessor at The Hague in May 1964. In an effort to improve these relations and in the interests of the solidarity of the alliance, they agreed that this "watching brief" should continue. They reaffirmed their determination to lose no opportunity of contributing to a reduction in tension and a peaceful, agreed and equitable solution of the problem of Cyprus, confirming also their support for the efforts of the United Nations and the mediator.
13.	Ministers considered a report on civil emergency planning. They reaffirmed the importance of such planning within the context of over-all defence, noting the progress which had been achieved and the work which remained to be done.
14.	The next meeting of the North Atlantic council at ministerial level will be held on the invitation of the United Kingdom government in London in May, 1965.