1964-08-17

Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on privileges and elections presented on June 15, 1964 be now concurred in.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, parliamentary
fortune of the second report of the standing committee on privileges and elections has long been delayed. It is my earnest hope that the healing power of time has composed whatever differences there may have been over its acceptance. This inquest into the past has deeply exercised the minds of many members, and its evolution from its origin has been in a sea of controversy.
If it is not inconvenient or disagreeable to the house, may I be allowed to offer a few observations. It is scarcely necessary for me to make plain that I speak only for myself. It would be convenient, I think, if I began by reintroducing the history of the matter for the house in a very summary fashion, and by this means we may retrace our steps.
It will be remembered that on April 27 last the hon. member for Labelle rose on a point of privilege and made a statement to the house which included the gist of an alleged conversation between the national organizer of the Liberal party and himself in the presence of four other hon. members. Perhaps due to provocation, the statement was couched in language that readily lent itself to misconstruction.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I should like for what it is worth to refer to standing order 30 which reads as follows:
If anything shall come in question touching the conduct of any member, or his election, or his right to hold his seat, he may make a statement and shall withdraw during the time the matter is in debate.
The debate, at the present time, started with the remarks of the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Pennell).
Under standing order 30, would it not be more appropriate to ask the member concerned to make his statement and then to ask him to withdraw while the matter is in discussion?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me there must be some misunderstanding, because the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, if I understand it correctly, is speaking to this motion under standing order 32(l)(b) and not standing order 30. So far as I know there is no question of any member withdrawing at the moment. Am I correct?


Lawrence T. Pennell: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. Before I was interrupted I had indicated that on April 27 last the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Girouard) had made a statement to the house on a point of privilege, which included the gist of an alleged conversation between himself and the national organizer of the Liberal party in the presence of four other hon. members.
The day following, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rose on a point of privilege also, and moved that the matters raised in the statement be remitted to the committee for study and report. It was unfortunate, perhaps, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre misinterpreted the meaning of the statement, although I am bound to say in fairness to him that his misinterpretation was not unreasonable having regard to the language in which the statement was framed.


Mr. Knowles:: It was shared by the whole house.


Mr. Churchill:: No.


Lawrence T. Pennell: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I shall not trust to my memory. I would like to refer textually to Hansard at page 2645, where the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is reported as saying:
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Labelle has alleged in this house that he was offered a bribe...It is a breach of the privileges of this House of Commons...

Privileges and Elections Committee
That constituted the first allegation that accompanied the motion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If I may, I should like to go on now to page 2646 of Hansard where the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre continued as follows:
The hon. member for Labelle has been insulted by the alleged offer of a bribe. The Prime Minister has been insulted by what the hon. member for Labelle said about him...But my concern is that an insult to any member of the House of Commons is an insult to the house as a whole.
Once these allegations were turned loose, Mr. Speaker, a burden of suspicion fell upon all parties concerned, and it is a melancholy thing to see good names and honourable reputations trampled into the ground. It would be appropriate, I suggest, that the house remind itself of what is contained within the report. I do not propose to read all the report but only two material sentences:
Your committee reports that it found no evidence of bribery or attempted bribery. There was no question of privilege involved in the present reference.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to do everything within our power to undo the injustice that has been done, and in the course of my submission I shall respectfully invite the house to accept the report of one of its own committees as the considered judgment of the entire house. Before I turn to deal very briefly with the evidence on which the report rests I desire to dispel the innuendoes arising from alleged reports of the happenings at the chance and casual meeting which took place at Hull on the evening of February 17.
I am pleased to emphasize that the conduct of every member present was not unworthy of the standard expected of members in this chamber. As I approach the evidence it will be my earnest endeavour as well as my earnest desire to approach it in a detached and impartial manner. In fairness to the hon. member for Labelle I must say he made it abundantly clear, at the earliest opportunity before the committee, that he did not rise with the intention of accusing anyone or anything. I would ask the house to turn to page 50 in the first volume of the proceedings before the committee where the hon. member is reported as follows:
-when I rose on a question of privilege I did not rise with the intention of accusing anyone or anything.
The cross-examination of this witness, as of all witnesses, was taken up with great industry and relentless zeal. As recorded at

page 59 of the first volume the hon. member for Port Arthur cross-examined the hon. member for Labelle:


Mr. Fisher:: Well, you are very clear on this, that you were not offered any bribe by Mr. Davey?


Mr. Girouard:: Yes, I am clear.
The cross-examination continued as recorded at page 119 in the second volume.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Did Mr. Davey get into any of the advantages that might lie with the Liberal party for you personally in terms of your advancement to, say, senior positions in the party?


Gérard Girouard: No.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Did Mr. Davey get into questions concerning such things as judicial appointments or advantages that might come to you as a practising lawyer?


Gérard Girouard: No.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Did he suggest to you that there was a patronage list which would be available to you?


Gérard Girouard: No.
The witness was further examined by the hon. member for Renfrew North. In this connection I wish to turn to volume 3, page 187:


Mr. Greene:: You have told us in the witness box on two occasions that there was no bribery-


Gérard Girouard: No, I said there had not been any bribery. I want to state that here, before the members of the press. I said that no attempt had been made to bribe me.


John James Greene: I think you said in your previous evidence, if I recollect it correctly, that in your opinion there was no bribery. Is that correct?


Gérard Girouard: That is correct.
It is my respectful submission that no matter how you look at the evidence of the hon. member for Labelle you are driven back to the conclusion reached by the committee.
It is only fit and proper that I should make reference to the evidence of the hon. member for York-Scarborough and of the national organizer of the Liberal party. Both confirm the evidence of the hon. member for Labelle that there had been no attempt to bribe him. The force of the evidence when viewed dispassionately and with a single desire to see that justice is done dissipates and destroys every particle of the allegation of bribery.
I now pass to the second allegation, which might best be described as nothing more than the ghost of a rumour wrapped up in hearsay four times removed. It was a paradox, however, that the committee had to accept that, while they were called upon to investigate a question of privilege they found there was no question of privilege to investigate.
Let me go back to the report which I have already read to the house: "There is no question of bribery involved in the present

reference". The committee looked at all the circumstances and considered the evidence with care and precision, but came to the honest conclusion that the point involved was outside the definition of a question of privilege as we understand it in this house. May I say we were not unmindful of the attractive and persuasive argument put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but the committee also had the advice of the learned parliamentary counsel who was in attendance throughout.
I might reasonably anticipate that this part of the report may become a target for criticism because the committee did not return a formal verdict as to the truth or falsity of the allegation. The answer to such criticism is simplicity itself. Once the committee, after careful and conscientious consideration, had reached the conclusion that there was no question of privilege involved, then it would have been in violation of its principles to have taken the matter further. But I am bold enough to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is in this part of the report that may be found the real and lasting fruits of the committee's efforts. If out of the experience of the committee we serve to stiffen the resolution of this house not to spend its energies in pursuing synthetic points of privilege, then the committee will have been proved a useful instrument.
In the peculiar and special circumstances of this case I would be doing a great injustice to hon. members on both sides of the house if I were to let the matter rest there. It is within the knowledge of the house that on April 28 the right hon. Prime Minister rose in this house and categorically denied that there was any truth in this allegation. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that all reasonable and fair minded members on both sides of the house will agree that the Prime Minister's denial was an unanswerable reply to a contrary suggestion. It would be contrary, however, to the canons of decency and fair play if I did not also bring to your attention the fact that the hon. member for Labelle, while he denied that he was the original author of the allegation, at least was frank enough to concede that he did not suggest there was any truth in the allegation. The hon. member for York-Scarborough, while he also entered a personal disclaimer as to the authorship of this allegation, also stated- and was joined by the national organizer of the Liberal party-that there was no truth in this suggestion.
20220-435J
Privileges and Elections Committee
Whatever may be the fate of this motion, Mr. Speaker, at least I am entitled to claim that before the committee not one word was subtracted from the statement the Prime Minister made in this house on April 28.
I come for a brief moment to another matter that excited some difference of opinion within the committee, when the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), as was his right, in a somewhat aggressive and hostile fashion took exception to the suggestion that the committee should terminate its hearings upon the evidence of only three witnesses. However, the contrary point of view put forth by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) carried conviction to the mind of the committee and eventually commanded its assent. I can do no better than to borrow his words, which may be found on page 278 of the fourth volume of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of that committee:
It is now obvious that we are almost certain to have the word of five persons against the word of one which, to a general attitude towards fair play, looks unsatisfactory to everyone; that is, five to one in terms of this question of whether or not there were enticements.. .1 think we would be stupid to go much further in trying to nail this particular thing down. It seems to me that it is going to be a question of one man's word against five other men's word.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not dissociate myself from those remarks. On the contrary, I fully and wholeheartedly approve.
I come now to my final observation, and I move on to more debatable grounds. The house is acutely aware that there was a violent collision between the evidence given under oath by the hon. member for Labelle on the one hand and that given under oath by the hon. member for York-Scarborough and the national organizer of the Liberal party on the other. I would be failing in my duty, Mr. Speaker, if I attempted to pass over in silence this conflict in the evidence. I candidly confess that if you viewed this antagonism through the spectacles of suspicion, in a spirit of hostility and mistrust, then it is open to the harshest construction and must lead to the most prejudicial conclusion. But the first principle of justice demands that we view this matter in the most favourable light. It is my humble submission that if we approach this problem in a reasonable manner, making reasonable conclusions and reasonable assumptions, then the knot of entangled evidence may be untied with honour and with freedom of conscience.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to disfigure my few remarks with egotism, but perhaps the house will allow me to say that I have spent
6880	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Privileges and Elections Committee a large measure of my life within a courtroom, and I do not find the circumstances now engaging the attention of the house particularly unusual. More than 100 years ago a great judge of the common law dealt with this problem in this language:
It is a matter of frequent observation that persons dwelling for a long time on facts which they believe must have occurred come at last to persuade themselves that they do actually recollect the occurrences of circumstances which at first they only begin by believing must have happened. Without imputing anything like wilful and corrupt perjury to witnesses they often in truth bona fide believe that they have heard and remembered conversations which in truth never existed.
This was the language of Sir John Romilly, attorney general and solicitor general in Great Britain and a judge of the high court. It is no exaggeration to say that his judgment has been confirmed from that day until this moment. I am confident that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) out of his own experiences will confirm the authority which I have just cited. If he will allow me, I would adopt his words which he used before the committee and which are to be found at page 279 of the fourth volume of the committee report. They are as follows:
Of course it Is not unusual in any tribunal, whether it is a committee such as this where you call a witness, or a board or even a court, to find that witnesses differ. For example, it happens often in a court of law that one witness in a vehicle accident says he was on the right side of the road going in the one direction and another witness says he was on the other side going in another direction and all this happened on a 66 foot highway, and both of them have a head on collision almost at a standstill.
It should be borne in mind, Mr. Speaker, that these witnesses were asked to cast their minds back over a period of some two and a half months to recapture and reconstruct conversations and events which occurred at a time when no one thought they would ever be called into dispute.
I may reasonably anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that it will be said: "Put the law into action", but I can only answer that I can find no law to put into action. I do not say this to escape an unpleasant situation or for purposes of expediency, for if I felt otherwise I would not falter for one moment to oppose this report. May I say to the house that if we continue to bandy this report about it will become the cemetery for the good names and honourable reputations of innocent people. In my respectful submission the house can accept this report without mortgaging its conscience.
Let me say this and only this. Less than two years ago I came into this chamber for

the first time believing it to be the highest court in the land. I came believing it was a court not only of legislation but a court of justice and of honour. It is in that firm belief that I now invite the house to accept the report in the spirit and the letter in which it was tabled.


Mr. Reid Scoit (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, my delay in rising was that I had assumed that the hon. member for Bow River was getting to his feet to participate in this stage of the debate.
Before going into the main object of my remarks on this report I think as one who served on the committee I would first of all like to pay a word of tribute to the acting chairman. I think that perhaps save for his somewhat impassioned speech this afternoon all of us were quite impressed with his impartiality and his desire to see that all the matters referred to the committee were thoroughly explored. We all felt he was serving in a very difficult position. I personally felt that he did a very competent job, and I think I speak for all members of the committee when I say that we were impressed by the manner in which he conducted himself while he was the acting chairman.
However, Mr. Speaker, I really could not let his remarks this afternoon pass without dealing in some manner with his statements in which he referred to the action of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He said in his remarks that the member had turned loose certain allegations, and he talked about reputations being trampled into the ground.
Frankly I heard nothing which would indicate that, and I was hoping he would go on to tell us who was trampling reputations into the ground.
I do not think it is in any way reasonable to try to obscure the serious aspects of this committee report by attempting to assess any blame against the member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think it is significant that when he moved the motion to refer the hon. member for Labelle could hardly get to his feet quickly enough to second it, and the Prime Minister also was very anxious to second it. I think the house was convinced at that time that a prima facie case had been established, and the motion to send the matter to the committee was carried unanimously, without a dissenting vote. Therefore I think it is superficial to attempt to lay any sort of blame or otherwise upon the person who moved the motion.
However, Mr. Speaker, this was an interesting committee. It was both interesting and

dismaying, and it verged from the comical to the serious. The first lesson which it seems to me the house should learn is that generally speaking the committee on privileges and elections is not equipped in any way to deal with an issue of this kind. It was the first inquiry of which I had been a part where there were 29 prosecuting attorneys; where each member of the committee was free to go his own way, pursue his own investigation, ask any questions he wanted and endlessly repeat questions everybody else had asked.
I think it is significant that under the present set-up the committee is simply not equipped to do the job. There is no way for anybody to lead the questioning; therefore we spent days and days going over the same ground. The chairman's authority is far too limited in conducting such an inquiry and dealing with questions as they come forward, and there is a lack of any clearcut lines at all in an inquiry of this sort.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we had all the initial manoeuvring that took hours and hours and hours. It took a very long time to even decide what we were there trying to decide. Everybody had a different interpretation of the point of privilege, and it was a considerable length of time before we had any idea what we were trying to adjudicate upon. A great amount of time was spent in discussion trying to decide the order of witnesses and then, of course, we had the farcical, circus-like atmosphere that surrounded the lack of French reporters to take down the proceedings.
I do not want to review the terms of reference. The hon. member for Brant-Haldi-mand has already done that. We were trying to decide whether the statement of the hon. member for Labelle raised a question of privilege, and in doing that the testimony of the witnesses, of course, as has been pointed out, varied enormously. In fact the only thing the witnesses really agreed upon was that they met together on two occasions, once in a restaurant in Hull and once in the office of the hon. member for York-Scarborough. Other than that there was virtually no agreement in precise terms as to what had happened, what had been discussed, what had been agreed upon, what had been offered and what had not been offered. It was much easier to find out by the process of elimination those items that were not discussed than to find out what had actually taken place between the parties. So the evidence on the
Privileges and Elections Committee surface really does seem to be diametrically opposed.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think anybody who has dealt with this sort of thing before realizes one or two things. First, the most untrustworthy witness of all is the human memory. It is extremely difficult for anybody to recite in precise detail conversations and verbal statements that took place several months ago. This is why we terrible lawyers insist upon contracts being reduced to written form, and why international meetings insist upon written communiques. Once the meeting breaks up everybody's interpretation of what happened or what was said is probably quite different.
The other thing that I think it is important to understand in going through the hundreds of pages of evidence is that it is not just what is said at a meeting but also how it is said and the impression it gives. It is the interpretation that members take out of the words of other people who were present; and knowing Mr. Davey and how he can say things, I can see where some interpretation would be taken which might not be warranted.
However, Mr. Speaker, I think all one can do in these circumstances is to try to sift through the evidence, try to assess what really happened and then decide whether this does raise a problem of bribery or whether it does raise a question of privilege. I have tried to do this, and I hope in what I now say I will be fair to all parties concerned. After sifting the evidence and trying to reconcile the differences I think this is essentially what happened. I think the hon. member for La-belle decided that his political future was not very bright in the province of Quebec under the Social Credit party.


An hon. Member:: Which group?


Reid Scott: The group to which he belonged at the time. That was his decision to make, rightly or wrongly. I think the hon. member then began to look for another home. He told us that his organizers in his riding instructed him it was their wish that he become a Conservative, and I think his own background led him in that direction as well. I think he then met these members quite by accident and communicated his decision to leave the Social Credit party and his desire and inclination to join the Progressive Conservative party.
Something he said or the way in which he said it led these members to believe that he was not of a firm mind. Consequently, with

Privileges and Elections Committee his consent or certainly without his objection, telephone calls were made and a meeting was arranged with Mr. Davey. Again, I think a similar procedure followed at the meeting. The hon. member for Labelle said he only went to the meeting to please his friends. His friends said that the fact he went to the meeting led them to believe that his mind was not made up.
Who is to say who is right in circumstances like that? Again, at the meeting at which Mr. Davey was present there was a great deal of discussion about a flag and about some other things, but memories are very vague as to who said what and what took place. Again I say that in the circumstances, reading the evidence and trying to correlate it, obviously something that the member for Labelle said or the way in which he said it indicated that he was prepared to listen. Things were said to him about joining the Liberal party or what he might expect or what his position would be, and either at that conversation or at some other time he was led to believe that certain things would be available to him in the event that he joined this party. He himself admitted that he expected future meetings at which he would be consulted with regard to whether he had pondered these proposals.
I know you cannot reconcile all the evidence, but looking at it as a whole it is pretty clear there was a discussion, and there were to be subsequent meetings. It is significant that after negotiations broke down the member for Labelle then approached the Progressive Conservative party and announced his intention to join. I do not believe the facts are really very much in dispute. I do not think anyone would quarrel with that and, speaking again for myself, I do not see anything particularly sinister in that sort of thing taking place.
But, Mr. Speaker, is there anything we can learn from this whole sad affair? I want to suggest six things that I think might be of some benefit to us in the future. The first one I have already mentioned, namely that the committee on privileges and elections is not equipped and should not be expected to try to judge between the accuracy of the memories of various members of parliament with respect to verbal statements and discussions that took place at meetings months before. It is difficult enough for an impartial judiciary to make decisions of that kind on verbal evidence, much less to turn over such a matter to a political committee that is

charged with all the partisan by-play that took place on the occasion in question.
Second, I am satisfied that there was no evidence of bribery disclosed. Certainly the member for Labelle never considered he had been bribed. Certainly the essence of bribery is the offer of something to corrupt. There was no evidence that anything had been offered to corrupt. Therefore I believe that bribery clearly is out.
The really sad aspect of the whole affair to me was the degree to which it showed how the two major political parties approached this matter. There was no discussion with the hon. member as to whether he believed in the principles of the Liberal party. There was no evidence that the program and principles of the Liberal party were even laid before the member so he could decide. All they talked about was nominating him and getting him re-elected; how the chances would be. Really, all they were after was another body on that side of the house.
To me it is a sad reflection on the way in which the Liberal party approached this whole matter. They were not interested in the philosophy or the principles of this gentleman in question. They never asked him whether he believed in the Liberal party. They just wanted somebody to go on that side of the house. I believe that is a sad commentary on the way in which this episode was conducted.
The chairman's ruling, of course, prevented us from going into the very interesting field of the negotiations which may have taken place on his entry into the Conservative party. Many members of the committee were anxious to explore this interesting aspect of the question. It was felt it was not germane; therefore we did not go into it.
The next thing is that I do not believe parliament should be asked to decide upon what are essentially political party matters. The occasion in question here was really something within the frame work of the political parties themselves. It never got beyond the vague organizing stage. I do not believe parliament should be getting to the point where we are mixing into the general political activities of parties. In many ways we try not to recognize parties as such in the house. All the members here have duties and responsibilities to their electors and to the country that vastly transcend any party partisan considerations.
I feel that one of the troubles here, therefore, was that this whole matter should have been dealt with on the party level. If Mr. AUGUST 17. 1964
Davey was to have been reprimanded, he should have been reprimanded by the Liberal party. This affair should never have reached the point where we as parliamentarians were wallowing around in a party mix-up that took place outside of the house.
Then I do not believe there is any point in referring this matter back to the committee for further discussion. I do not believe there is any way in which we could make a finding that would be of any greater help than the one we have made. There is no point, either in referring this, as I understand my friends in the Ralliement Creditiste intend to move, to the attorney general for consideration of perjury charges. There is clearly no evidence of perjury here. It would be taking outside the authority of parliament control over its own affairs, and this is something for which parliament has fought for generations. If any action should be taken, it should be taken by the house itself as has been done on other occasions.
As I have said, the only unpleasant aspect of the affair to me was the approach taken in which there was no real concern or discussion of the principles involved. Perhaps this is because there is not any real difference between the two major parties; I do not know. Certainly in my opinion this is the only real, sad aspect of the whole sad affair.


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, first, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand for the manner in which he performed his duties as acting chairman of the committee on privileges and elections.
However, while several members of the committee were present, we objected to the adoption of the report, and that for a number of reasons.
First of all, some people seem prepared to sit on the fence. The hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Scott) has just said that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) was not sure he was going to join the Conservative party, while, on the contrary, the hon. member himself is reported as stating he was determined, even before the meeting, to do so. That is why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seems to be blamed for rising on a question of privilege, when at that time everyone agreed.
But to discuss objectively the meetings of the committee on privileges and elections, we must keep to the statement made by the hon. member for Labelle and the question of priv-
Privileges and Elections Committee ilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Therefore, we must go back to April 27. Now, at page 2583 of Hansard for that date we read this:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Last Friday, as reported on page 2538 of Hansard, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) interrupted the debate to insinuate that my recent decision was due to political bargaining on my part.
The remark of the hon. member for Bonaventure could have passed for a joke, but the hon. member forgot that wit is the mother of humour.
I shall therefore take a few minutes in order to clear myself from the charge made against my integrity by the hon. member for Bonaventure. At the risk of disappointing members of the press gallery, I have decided not to mention the dates, places and names of certain Liberal members involved, because I refuse to become an accomplice of the chief Liberal organizer who would have allowed me to reflect on the political reputation of certain friends whose only mistake was to show their sincerity in this matter.
About two months ago, I met publicly four Liberal members in Hull. In reply to one of their questions concerning my political future, I said that I was quite decided to join the ranks of the Conservative party.
That is a clear indication that even before the sittings of the committee on privileges and elections, he was quite decided to join the Conservative party, even if he did not know at that time that he would be accepted by that party. I resume my reading:
At that very moment a Liberal member got up to make a phone call. When he returned to our table, he strongly insisted that I take no decision without having met Keith Davey, the chief Liberal organizer.
I replied that my decision was final, that the organizers of my riding wanted me to be a Conservative and that such a meeting would probably be useless.
However, urged by my colleagues, I agreed to receive in my office-you understand, in my
office-
I emphasize these words:
-the power behind the Liberal party. Another telephone call from a member of parliament and the meeting was set for the next morning. At eleven o'clock, the next morning-
I skip a few lines and I come here to the discussion which happened in the office.
-but my first words to Mr. Davey were to confirm my intention of joining the Conservative party. I told him that if I had come to the meeting, it was only to please my friends.
Therefore, I understand that the hon. member for Danforth knew that the hon. member for Labelle was then well-intentioned.
-if I had come to the meeting, it was only
to please my friends.
There was then an animated discussion and the following benefits were outlined:

Privileges and Elections Committee
The benefits: a party in power and a fat electoral fund for the next election.
A week later, a Liberal member of parliament belonging to that same group approached me to tell me that he was very sorry but the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had asked his chief organizer to cease all pressure because he, the Prime Minister, was sure to lose the regular support of the Social Credit party if he ever stole members from that party.
Mr. Speaker, I have never asked to join the ranks of the Liberal party and, as far as I know, none of my former colleagues have ever made such a request either.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, the following day, April 28, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose on a question of privilege, as reported at page 2645 of Hansard for April 28, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege relates to the fact that this house has been insulted in one way or another, if not in two ways. The basis for my statement is to be found in the remarks, under a question of privilege, that were made yesterday by the hon. member for Labelle. There are two aspects of that statement on which I found my question of privilege today. I shall come to each of them in a moment.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to standing order 79, which reads as follows:
The offer of any money or other advantage to any member of this house for the promoting of any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted in parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanor, and tends to the subversion of the constitution.
I should like also to draw Your Honour's attention to citation 108, paragraph 5 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
The offer of a bribe in order to influence a member in any of the proceedings of the house, or of a committee, has been treated as a breach of privilege, being an insult not only to the member himself, but to the house.
It is the language of that citation that prompted me, in my opening words, to say it is the house that has been insulted. I should like also to draw your attention to section 100 of the Criminal Code of Canada. I shall not read all the section because all of it is not relevant, but I shall read the relevant portion:
Everyone who gives or offers corruptly to a person who holds a judicial office, or is a member of the parliament of Canada or of a legislature, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity for himself or another person, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre refers to the statement by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard):
Mr. Davey was rather suggesting at that moment that I join the ranks of the Liberal party. He said he would take care of the defeated Liberal candidate and as for unsatisfied Liberal organizers, I only would have to change them.

The benefits: a party in power and a fat electoral fund for the next election.
Mr. Speaker, it was on that ground that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked that the whole question be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.
-the member for Labelle has alleged in this house that he was offered a bribe, that he was offered certain advantages if he would take a certain position in this House of Commons. If that fact is true it is contrary to standing order 79 which I read, to citation 108, paragraph 5 and to section 100 of the Criminal Code.
If this has happened I say it is an insult not just to the hon. member for Labelle but it is an insult to this House of Commons. It is a breach of the privileges of this House of Commons, and the matter certainly ought to be investigated by this house through its committee on privileges and elections.
However, Mr. Speaker, if what the hon. member for Labelle said about things that happened outside this chamber is not true, or even if what he said is true, there is something else in what the hon. member said yesterday which gives offence to this house. It is an insult to one of the members of the house, and therefore is an insult to the house itself. I refer to the very next paragraph in the hon. member's statement, right after the ones I read a moment ago. That next paragraph reads as follows, on the same page 2583 of the English version of yesterday's Hansard:
A week later, a Liberal member of parliament belonging to that same group approached me to tell me that he was very sorry but the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had asked his chief organizer to cease all pressure because he, the Prime Minister, was sure to lose the regular support of the Social Credit party if he ever stole members from that party.
Thereupon, Mr. Speaker, we met in committee on privileges and elections to discuss the statement made by the hon. member for Labelle. We cannot give evidence on what was said or what was not said because, as the members of the committee know, the witnesses were under oath but the testimonies were diametrically opposed.
That is why it is my duty to report these facts to the house.
As can be seen in No. 1, page 58, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) asked the following question:


Douglas Mason Fisher: In English, your statement in the house included this: The benefits:	a party in
power and a fat electoral fund for the next election.
Was that the sum of what Mr. Davey put to you? Were there other people there expressing the same attractions?


Gérard Girouard: No one else has made this accusation except Mr. Davey.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Davey, to your mind, offered you the benefits of the party in power. Did he elaborate on that?


Gérard Girouard: Yes, up to a certain point. Only it was the main idea.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Can you tell us just what these benefits were?


Gérard Girouard: You ask me what the advantages were. That is exactly what I said:
A party in power, a fat electoral fund.
And a little further:


Douglas Mason Fisher: All right. I will turn to the next question which seems to me to be fundamental in this, and that is the question of:
A week later, a Liberal member of parliament belonging to that same group approached me to tell me that he was very sorry but the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had asked his chief organizer to cease all pressure because he, the Prime Minister, was sure to lose the regular support of the Social Credit party if he ever stole members from that party.
Who was that member of parliament?


Gérard Girouard: A most sincere member of the Liberal party, the member for York-Scarborough.


Douglas Mason Fisher: You have nothing to add at all to the thought which would in any way change the meaning of that?
In other words, so far as you are concerned you were clearly told this by the member from York-Scarborough. There was no confusion in your mind?


Gérard Girouard: I was told what was said.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Did you do anything at all to check into the statement, I mean with your own party, that is, your party at that time, the Social Credit party?


Gérard Girouard: That question is out of order, Mr. Chairman.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: No, no. What was the question again?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Did you do anything at that time, after receiving this information from Mr. Moreau, to see whether there had been any repercussion with the Social Credit party in connection with the matter?


Gérard Girouard: I did not say it.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Are you prepared to answer?


Gérard Girouard: No, I did not say it. I think it is out of order.
And further on, here is the reply given to a question asked by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams):


Mr. Woolliams:: In respect of anything Mr. Keith Davey said at anytime, were you induced to join the Liberal party?


Gérard Girouard: If the word "inducement" means to tempt, to attract, yes; if it were to mean "bribe", the answer is no.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we take Mr. Moreau's testimony in No. 3, page 201, when he offers his argument before being questioned, here is what we read:
About two months ago, I met publicly four Liberal members in Hull. In reply to one of their questions concerning my political future, I replied that I was quite decided to join the ranks of the Conservative party. At the very moment a Liberal member got up to make a phone call. When he returned to our table, he strongly insisted that I take no decision without having met Keith Davey, the chief Liberal organizer.
Privileges and Elections Committee
I should just like to put on the record the fact that the matter of calling Mr. Davey had been discussed for approximately half and hour and that I made the telephone call with his full knowledge and consent, and I would not have called Mr. Davey had I not felt that he was indeed very interested in exploring the possibility of joining the Liberal party.
And further on, Mr. Moreau said:
I should like to review my recollection of the events that led to the phone call.
As I stated earlier, I offered to phone Mr. Davey if he wished me to and with his full knowledge and consent I made the telephone call. I called Mr. Davey about 10.30 on the night of the 17th-
Here I leave out a few lines and come back to where he himself said:
I returned to the table and reported to Mr. Girouard that Mr. Davey was prepared to talk to him and at this point of the discussion, Mr. Girouard said he did not want to go to the national Liberal party's office. We did discuss where we might meet. Mr. Girouard's office was ruled out for the same reason, that it was not wise. Mr. Girouard certainly did not want to be seen in the national Liberal federation office and it seemed that the same objection applied as far as Mr. Davey going to his office. It was agreed that we would meet in Mr. Macaluso's office which is quite near Mr. Girouard's office in the west block.
At this point I shall leave out some of the text to come back to the talk which took place in Mr. Macaluso's office.
During the earlier part of the meeting, a discussion about the flag issue arose. Mr. Girouard was quite concerned about what the Liberal party's decision on a distinctive national flag was. We reaffirmed, or indicated to him, that we were sure that our party was committed and we certainly all were committed to a distinctive national flag. Mr. Macaluso then returned to his office and got a letter which our whip has sent out indicating that this was the reply to flag letters that the P.M. was sending out.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I will leave out a few further paragraphs to come to a statement of the hon. member for York-Scarborough, who said:
I then felt that I should report this to Mr. Girouard, and I did. I would like to refer again to something in his statement of April 7 in which he said:
A week later, a Liberal member of parliament belonging to that same group-
-and later he identified that member of parliament as me-approached me to tell me that he was very sorry but the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had asked his chief organizer to cease all pressure because he, the Prime Minister, was sure to lose the regular support of the Social Credit party if he ever stole members from that party. I have no such information. I did not make that statement to Mr. Girouard. It is my recollection that Mr. Girouard said to me on hearing the report that the reaction in Quebec had not bee particularly favourable, "Oh, well, I knew it would never come off anyway", and again for the reason that the Prime Minister would be afraid

Privileges and Elections Committee to lose the support of the Social Credit party. I did not make that statement.
And at that moment the hon. member for Danforth asked the following question:
Mr. Chairman, as one of Mr. Moreau's constituents I have a couple of questions to ask.
Can you tell us if there were any discussions with Mr. Girouard about this matter before you actually met in Hull?


Mr. Moreau:: I had a number of meetings with Mr. Girouard. I met him first at the privileges and elections committee meetings last session: he was a member of that committee. Mr. Girouard's office was very near to mine and on a number of occasions we discussed a very large number of matters. I was perhaps aware prior to the adjournment of the house at Christmas that Mr. Girouard was less than happy with his present state, but I do not think that any discussion specifically regarding his movement from one party to another had taken place. I do not know if that is a relevant matter to this in any case.


Mr. Nielsen:: The answer is no, then?


Maurice John Moreau: I should like to add something to my statement. I am sorry, Mr. Scott, that I left something out of my statement which is a very important point, as I am sure the committee will appreciate. I did not deal with the matter of the benefits of the party in power and a "fat electoral fund" at the next election.
I would like to elaborate and to deny categorically that any mention of campaign funds or the party in power was made in my office.


Mr. Rheaume:: By yourself?


Maurice John Moreau: By anyone.


Reid Scott: Are you referring to the meeting between Mr. Davey and the four other members when you say that?


Maurice John Moreau: Yes.


Reid Scott: You were present throughout all that time?


Maurice John Moreau: I was present throughout.


Reid Scott: Do you say, Mr. Moreau, that Mr. Davey never offered any campaign funds?


Maurice John Moreau: The subject of campaign funds was never brought up.
Mr. Speaker, as recorded on page 206, the hon. member for Danforth asked the following question:


Reid Scott: I do not want to repeat this, but from what you have told us you are saying that at no time did anybody mention campaign funds, fat campaign funds, or words of that kind.


Maurice John Moreau: X deny that they were mentioned in any way at any time in my office that morning or the night before in Hull.
Further on, we read this:


Reid Scott: Do you realize your evidence places us in a very, very difficult position. I want to be sure you are absolutely firm in your own mind on this point.


Maurice John Moreau: I am very firm and I have thought about it a great deal.
Further on the hon. member for Danforth asked the following question:
IMr. Beaule.j


Reid Scott: At the meeting ten days later, Mr. Girouard has told us-and we have heard his testimony-that you were the member who told him that the discussion had been called off because of something Mr. Pearson had said.


Reid Scott: On a point of order, I wish to correct the hon. member. I did not say the testimony of the hon. member for York-Scarborough placed him in a difficult position. I said it placed the committee in a difficult position. I think this should be on the record.


Jean Robert Beaulé: I continue to read, Mr. Speaker:


Maurice John Moreau: X would like to add another thing to my statement:
Mr. Speaker, in his statement, the hon. member for York-Scarborough declares that he is not the one who stated that the Prime Minister would lose the support of the Social Credit, but the hon. member for Labelle.
I would now like to quote an extract of the evidence given by Mr. Keith Davey.
As can be seen on page 300 of No. 4, Mr. Davey said:
The only thing I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that at no time in the meeting was there any discussion of money or campaign funds of any kind. I made no reference to a "fat electoral fund" for the next election; nor did I say that I would "take care of the defeated Liberal candidate": nor did I say that "as for unsatisfied Liberal organizers" I would only have to change them. I did not use the phrase "The benefits: a party in power."
This is a summary of what took place during the sittings of the committee on privileges and elections which was instructed to study the question moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If we concur in the report, as we are asked to, this would mean that the hon. member for Labelle may have or may not have told the truth, because at that moment the question of privilege was raised in regard to an attempt of bribery by offering the benefits of a party in power and "a fat electoral fund".
On the other hand, if we come to the conclusion that these statements were not made, then it means that the house has been misled by the hon. member for Labelle and that there must have been some untruths somewhere, especially if the hon. member for York-Scarborough and Mr. Keith Davey told the truth.
If the house concurs in the report, it will recognize that the statement of the hon. member for Labelle is not truthful.

In view of the contradictory evidence given before the committee on privileges and elections, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire):
That the report of the committee on privileges and elections be not concurred in now, but that it be referred back to that committee on privileges and elections and that the said committee recommend to the house, in view of the apparent contradiction of the sworn statements, to have the record of evidence examined by the attorney general of Ontario, leaving it to him to take the necessary action or to make the appropriate decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Had the proposed amendment merely referred to the question whether this report should be sent to the attorney general of Ontario it would not, in my opinion, have been acceptable. However, the proposed amendment is to the effect that the report of the committee on privileges and elections be not now concurred in but that it be referred back to that committee to be dealt with as the committee may see fit and proper. I will, therefore, accept the amendment as proposed.
The question is on the amendment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the amendment.
One fact seems obvious. On the face of it, it seems here as it seemed in committee that the two old parties have suddenly agreed to forget the whole business. There seems to be something which is rather smelly on the Conservative side and things do not smell any better on the Liberal side, considering the tentative accusations which were levelled at the Prime Minister.
In such a case, as it happened in the past and as it is bound to happen again, for the two old parties are pretty much of the same origin, they agree that it is better to forget the whole thing.
But one thing remains: this matter involves a bribery attempt. Was there an attempt or was there not?
The hon. member for Labelle rises and says: I was offered the benefits of a party in office and a substantial election fund.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rises and says: If he has been offered that, the matter must be referred for consideration to the committee on privileges and elections because in such a case, there would have been a breach of the privileges of the hon. member for Labelle in the attempt to bribe him.
Privileges and Elections Committee
Now, the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand claims that there has been no bribery attempt.
But according to the minutes of the committee in question the hon. member for Labelle himself would have stated: It was tempting. That was like the worm used to bait the hook: It is tempting and the fish bites. Sometimes the fish does not bite because the bait is withdrawn too soon. That is somewhat what happened when the hon. member for York-Scarborough said to the hon. member for Labelle, according to his testimony: I am sorry but the deal is off; the Liberals do not want you.
But the hon. member for Labelle himself says: It was tempting.
He was offered the bait but it was withdrawn too soon. Since he could not bite, he went to another party.
The organizer of the Liberal party says: He asked us to take him but we rejected him.
The hon. member for Labelle says: No, they offered me election funds and the advantages of a party in office.
And yet it was stated that there had been no bribery attempt. Mr. Speaker, what is a bribery attempt if it is not to offer to an hon. member the advantages of the political party in power? Look in the report of the committee on privileges and elections where the question was asked on many occasions. What is the meaning of the advantages of a political party in power? The hon. member of Labelle did not say what they were, but everyone knows what it is all about. All the Liberals who are now in power and the Conservatives who held office previously know that patronage is involved. We have had examples of that with the lists of the Post Office Department: It is an advantage held by the party in power.
A fat electoral fund? It was tempting for a member of parliament who, without funds, would never be elected, but with a fat electoral fund-and I would like to point out to the leader of the Liberal party that it will have to be a fat one-


Mr. Marlineau:: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question-


Gilles Grégoire: It will take a lot of money to have him elected.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I put a question to the hon. member?
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he or his party are trying to assume office?


Mr. Caouelle:: In your case, definitely.

Privileges and Elections Committee


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue that if, at the last election, I had been elected by a majority of only one vote, I would abandon any thought of winning back my constituency. A one-vote majority is nothing to brag about and holds not too much hope for the future.
Mr. Speaker, it was nevertheless an attempt at bribery. If one reads the report of the committee on privileges and elections, one sees that the hon. member for Labelle stated clearly that it was tempting. He admitted that it was tempting.
And there are people who would try and make us believe that there was no attempt at bribery. Mr. Speaker, we are not so naive. If there are some who want to be naive it is up to them.
Mr. Speaker, another problem was raised, and rightly so, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am wondering whether the hon. member is keeping a close watch on the time. Should he not be making preparations for his trip to Copenhagen?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that, realizing how stupid the Conservatives were on the flag issue, I said to myself: I am leaving. And when I was asked when I would come back, I said: when the Conservatives are through talking about the flag. Indeed, I think every intelligent person ought to let them speak by themselves, alone in this house, and go as far away as possible. I do hope that with the Atlantic ocean between me and the meaningless speeches of the Conservatives, I shall be rid of them.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad also, since the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is raising this problem, to go and take part in this international meeting of parliamentarians. I do feel that I have to get some experience and I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have studied parliamentary procedure and are qualified in that field.
I am pleased to commend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for his competence as a parliamentarian. If I go to


Copenhagen it is precisely in order to become as competent as he is and to be able to compete with him when we shall sit on the other side of the house.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, this is not a bribery attempt on my part in order to get the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to cross over to our side.
A further interesting point in all this is that the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand suggested it was not up to the committee to determine who was right or who was wrong.
Now, an accusation was lodged against the right hon. Prime Minister.
I heard the charge when the hon. member for Labelle said: the hon. member for York-Scarborough told me that the Prime Minister had allegedly mentioned to the Liberal national organizer that he was afraid that he would lose the support of the Social Credit party.
It reminds me of the man who had been listening to every Tom, Dick and Harry. You do not know where the truth lies.
But the hon. member for Labelle jotted all that down and then repeated it in the House of Commons, thus insulting the right hon. Prime Minister, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated.
I appreciate that the Prime Minister denied it, but the hon. member for Labelle maintained his statement.
It is said that in the House of Commons, we must accept the word of an hon. member. Now, the hon. member for Labelle said one thing, and the Prime Minister said exactly the opposite. Where is the truth? It is rather difficult to know under those circumstances, and the truth should always be obvious.
As far as I am concerned, in view of the language used by the hon. member for Labelle, I cannot hesitate in believing the statement made by the Prime Minister. But since the matter was sent to the committee on privileges and elections, I think that the committee should have come to a clear conclusion instead of coming out with a most indefinite one.
Mr. Speaker, the matter was brought to a stop while under way. All witnesses were not heard. I heard some of my good Liberal friends say: It is better not to hear the four Liberal members, because inconsistencies might come out.
Frankly, I admit that it left a bitter taste in my mouth to know that not only the Tories and Grits would contradict each other, but that the four Liberal members would do so too.

Therefore, a most vague and general conclusion is brought forward, which does not compromise anybody, in spite of the accusations that were made.
And we have the hon. member for Port Arthur rising in the committee to move a resolution according to which there was no question of privilege involved, after the same hon. member had on many occasions repeated before the committee that the chief organizer of the Liberal party, Hr. Davey, was one of his personal friends. After soft-sawdering the Liberal party organizer, the hon. member for Port Arthur is the first to suggest that the whole thing be forgotten as soon as possible.
But what is more important and more serious-and I speak more especially of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec East-is that the latter pointed out glaring contradictions in statements made under oath.
We do not want to hear: It is because we had forgotten. It is obvious that if the hon. member for Labelle states that he was offered an electoral fund, he remembers that well because last time he did not have any and, moreover, he would need one for the next time.
The national organizer for the Liberal party and the hon. member for York-Scar-borough say: We never offered him an electoral fund. So, on the one hand, it is maintained that he was never offered one while on the other, he maintained that he was offered one.
On seven specific points the statements of two members are diametrically opposed, although they were under oath.
A newspaperman said: These can be called "apparent sworn contradictions" but in plain language this is called perjury. The members of the House of Commons are also here to set an example for the Canadian people. If a Canadian citizen perjures himself, he is condemned to prison; he is liable to prison under the Criminal Code. This section of the law dealing with perjury has been passed by the House of Commons. If there is some doubt as to a sworn statement made by a person, he will be prosecuted before the courts.
This is done in the case of high ranking persons, even in our judicial system. But anybody is considered innocent as long as he is not proven guilty by the courts.
When an ordinary citizen is involved, there is, at least, a charge laid against him, followed by an investigation and prosecution. But is there any difference when an hon. member is involved, who has to behave
Privileges and Elections Committee properly, or at least observe the law as passed by the House of Commons?
When a member of the House of Commons
is involved I think that it is perhaps neither more nor less serious, but it is nevertheless as serious as when an ordinary Canadian citizen is implicated.
There is an example to be set. Shall we begin to observe the law ourselves or shall we violate it without having to bear the consequences?
A while ago the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) said that the House of Commons -and not the attorney general of the province-would thus be authorized to render judgment upon its members. But will any member of the house, Liberal as well as Conservative, feel himself qualified to judge any action of his peers, when, from the first, he is imbued with partisan politics and will ask for nothing better than to deal in the worst possible way with a political opponent and do all he can for a friend?
To my mind hon. members in this house are not qualified to act in this way, but it is rather up to the judiciary to render judgment in such cases.
That is why we say that parliament should not ask the committee on privileges and elections to state that the hon. member concerned has committed perjury, but that everything be put in the hands of the competent authorities, that is, of the attorney general of Ontario so that the latter could proceed with an inquiry, go over the evidence and call in witnesses, after which he might render a decision himself without being politically involved like the members of the House of Commons would be.
It is true that parliament should as much as possible seek to direct its own affairs, as the hon. member for Danforth said, but in a case like this, parliament would be neither impartial nor objective, nor able to decide. Under the circumstances, the case should be left in the hands of competent and impartial authorities, that is, the judiciary.
Indeed, perjury in itself is not under parliamentary jurisdiction, but should be dealt with under the Criminal Code and the judicial system which, alone, have the necessary competence to render a decision with regard to perjury.
If there has been perjury, it did not happen in the house, but in committee. Then, the members involved accepted, of their own free will, to give up their privilege and testify under oath; they knew very well what to expect in so doing.
6890	HOUSE OF
Privileges and Elections Committee
In my opinion, the situation at the present time is obvious. Throughout the country people have been informed of what transpired before the committee.
I have not the least intention to say who committed perjury. This is not my problem; it is not up to me to say. It is not up to us either. But it is incumbent upon us to point out the facts which took place. We do not want to decide by ourselves which one is guilty, and to what extent, but we believe that the House of Commons would fare better in the opinion of the public if the committee on privileges and elections were instructed by the house to leave the whole thing to the persons qualified to judge such cases. Then, people may have a better opinion of their representatives.
We are judging nobody, we are only asking that the facts be clarified to the satisfaction of each and everyone, and this not through prejudiced people, but through impartial people, whose task, entrusted to them by the parliament of Canada, is to see to it that the Criminal Code, and even the sections concerning perjury, passed by the parliament of Canada, be respected.
I am appealing to the members of the house, not with prejudice, since we shall have nothing to say then, but in an impartial way, so that parliamentary legislation, the reputation of the members and also the accuracy of the facts may be respected.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, since it is I who put before the committee on privileges and elections the motion to the effect that there had been no attempt at bribery and that the matter should be referred to the house for concurrence, I should like to say a few words first to assure the house that we agree on the report submitted to the house, because the question which was referred to the committee on privileges and elections was to inquire whether there had been any attempt at bribery.
Now, the evidence given before the committee on privileges and elections led us all to believe that there was no attempt at bribery and, in my opinion, the majority of members are satisfied with this report concerning this aspect of the question.
The problem raised by the Ralliement Cre-ditiste is not to know whether or not there was any attempt at bribery, but rather if there was perjury.


An hon. Member:: Both.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Now, whether or not there was perjury is not a question which should be discussed by the committee on privileges and elections.
What strikes me most, Mr. Speaker, is that the members of the Ralliement Creditiste tried by all possible means to get an individual at the committee on privileges and elections and when they could not succeed and when they realized that the committee had no authority to grant their wish they now resort to another means, namely the introduction of an amendment, so that the whole thing would be referred again to the committee on privileges and elections, in order to examine and inquire whether or not there was perjury.
In my opinion, this reason or this attitude on the part of the members of the Ralliement Creditiste is easy to explain. First, I feel that it is merely a vicious revenge against an individual who refused to follow the policy of the Ralliement Creditiste because its members diassociated themselves from the national Social Credit party.
I do not think such an attitude could inspire noble motives of justice because usually, for those people, it is completely beyond their capacity to render an equitable judgment on a decision of the committee on privileges and elections-


David Réal Caouette: You pass such good judgment.


Gérard Chapdelaine: All were agreed in the house and also in the committee that there was no attempt at bribery, except the members of the Ralliement Creditiste who actually remind me of that mother who, seeing the regiment going by, said that only her son was in step.
What amazes me even more, Mr. Speaker, is that suddenly they have such a craving for justice concerning a few members of the house while, generally, we all agree that there was no breach of the privileges of the house.
If some member of the house feels aggrieved by the stand taken by the committee on privileges and elections, I suggest that he lodge a personal complaint which he will have to prove.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To date, we tried to stick to the subject matter of the motion now before the house. We did not blame any political party, but rather we asked that the case be judged not by us but by someone else.

I do not think that the hon. member for Sherbrooke, who attended very few sittings of the committee on privileges and elections, is in a position to discuss what happened, because he is completely beside the point.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think that even if I did not attend all the sittings of the committee, I can read and am able to find out what happened. Besides, I attended one sitting and I noted that the members of the Ralliement Creditiste were filibustering and were out to get a certain individual. I could see that they wanted to wreak vengeance on a former colleague.
After hearing all the evidence in order to decide whether there was an attempt at bribery, we came to the conclusion that there was none. It was then that the hon. member for Lapointe, who wanted the committee to lay a charge of perjury-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. What the hon. member for Sherbrooke said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has been quite lenient, especially on the rule of relevancy, in the hope that we can get on with the business before the house. Is the house ready for the question?


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, about what the hon. member for Sherbrooke has just said to the effect that we wanted to bring an accusation of perjury. I want to say that the hon. member for Sherbrooke lied because the motion at that time was to refer everything to the attorney general of Ontario in order to decide who had lied to the committee and not to judge that question ourselves.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke is distorting the facts and he lies shamelessly to the house. If he had been present at the committee, he would have realized that the motion was to the contrary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask all hon. members to restrict themselves to the amendment before the house. Is the hon. member for Sherbrooke finished?


Gérard Chapdelaine: No, Mr. Speaker. On the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Lapointe, I have just been accused of distorting the facts. All hon. members who
Privileges and Elections Committee attended the committee meetings surely realized that the aim of the hon. member for Lapointe was to have a charge of perjury brought against one or the other of the members who had testified before the committee. I do not think I lied to the house when all I did was to report the facts which took place at that meeting of the committee on privileges and elections.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say I am satisfied with the report submitted by the committee and that, in my view, the amendment is not in order inasmuch as those who want to bring charges should do so under their own names and not on behalf of the whole Canadian government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say just a word or two on the amendment, but I rise also for another purpose which I will indicate in a moment. For the reasons that were stated by my colleague the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Scott) even before the amendment was moved, we do not feel that the house would be well advised to accept this amendment to refer this matter back again to the committee on privileges and elections. We think that committee has had enough of it, and we are not satisfied that enough of the ingredients of perjury are before us to support this kind of motion. There is also the question whether we want to delegate to the attorney general of a province a measure of authority over what goes on on parliament hill. Surely we should look after these things ourselves.
However, Mr. Speaker, I rose also at this point because now that an amendment has been moved the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand can speak again. Quite seriously I invite him to do so, because I believe that in his initial statement he registered implications that he would not want to have stand, being the fair minded person that this house has acclaimed him to be. He referred in his opening remarks to my part in moving the original motion on the 28th of April, and during the course of his remarks he used the phrase "synthetic point of privilege" and he suggested at one point that I raised it out of a misunderstanding of what was involved in a point of privilege. There seemed to be a suggestion that the whole mess we have gone through is somehow to be laid at my door. May I suggest, and I suggest this very seriously to the house, that if no account had been taken by the House of Commons of the remarks that were placed on the record

Privileges and Elections Committee on the 27th of April by the hon. member for Labelle we would have been derelict in our duty. Furthermore, when I raised my point of privilege on the 28th of April there was competition in the house to second my motion. I indicated that my leader was prepared to second it, but the hon. member for Labelle was on his feet asking to second it, and the Prime Minister offered to second it. When you, sir, later put the motion and started to name the Prime Minister as the seconder several Conservative members protested and said no, it was the member for Labelle who should have the right to second it.
The house supported the motion unanimously, which is a clear suggestion that the house felt at that time that whatever the committee on privileges and elections might do, it should look into the matter. I am prepared to accept the judgment of the committee on privileges and elections now that it has made an investigation, but I suggest that the kind of implication the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand made should not have been made, and that he should now take advantage of this opportunity to speak again to correct that impression.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, may I say I acknowledge freely that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is entitled to the greatest respect at my hands. As he pointed out quite properly, I voted for the motion that he introduced. I wish to make it meticulously plain that I am not suggesting that his motion was a synthetic point of privilege. I was just putting forward the general principle that in future the house ought to satisfy itself before we embark on these committee inquiries. I trust I have satisfied the hon. member. I was not reflecting upon him, because all members of the house stand in great debt to his unrivalled knowledge of the rules of practice and procedure, and I am pleased to make this statement in his presence.


Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenieuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, may I say-


Lawrence T. Pennell: Is there any suggestion in the hon. member's mind that I am still reflecting upon him?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not at all. The hon. gentleman has withdrawn the reflection, and I accept his withdrawal.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am in complete agreement with the report

which the committee on privileges and elections submitted to the house for approval and which stated that there had been no bribery nor any bribery attempt regarding the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard).
However, I was particularly impressed by the contradictory testimony given before that committee. As stated earlier by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Pennell) and the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Beaule), the testimony was rendered under oath and had it been given before a court of justice, I am sure the presiding judge would have applied sanctions to one or more witnesses who testified or he would have referred the case to the crown attorney for careful consideration.
As already pointed out, it is extremely difficult for the house to penalize one of its members. It is still more difficult to undertake a thorough investigation; in fact, this was realized during the proceedings of the committee on privileges and elections.
At the beginning of the meetings, we did not even have a bilingual stenographer. The proceedings of the committee had to be delayed to find a stenographer who was qualified to take down the evidence given by the witnesses.
In addition, I feel that the hon. members are not in a position to criticize the attitude or conduct of some of their colleagues. I also believe that to do justice to public opinion, it would be advisable to submit the evidence heard before the committee on privileges and elections to the attorney general of Ontario, in order that he may decide whether it would be advisable to institute proceedings against one or several of those who appeared before the committee on privileges and elections.
However, Mr. Speaker I would not want my intervention to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). In fact, I dissociate myself completely from the insinuations he made with regard to the two traditional parties of this house. There has been, neither within nor outside the committee, any collusion between the Conservative and the Liberal parties with regard to those questions. Besides, no member of the Liberal party received any instructions concerning his vote in the committee or in the house, and this is evidenced now by the stand I am taking.
Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleagues who supported the report now before the house, and I also understand their attitude in the committee as well as in this house.

With a great deal of generosity, they reconcile the conflicting evidence given before the committee. Maybe I am less generous than they are, but I find it more difficult to explain that evidence. In my opinion, the public has the right to know who lied before the committee and it also has the right to demand that those who committed perjury should suffer the consequences.
I am not afraid for my colleague from York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) who testified before the committee. I followed with great interest and regularity the proceedings of the committee and I examined the minutes carefully enough to know that the hon. member for York-Scarborough was sincere in his evidence. Indeed, the hon. member for Labelle said as much before the committee on privileges and elections.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put, I should like to make a few brief remarks regarding certain statements made today, as well as others made in the committee on privileges and elections.
After hearing the statements and the discussions, it is obvious that a meeting was held between prominent members of the Liberal party and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard). Everyone is convinced of this. Since the report also mentions it, I feel bound to intervene at this time. I am convinced that the hon. member for Labelle was approached by the Liberal organization, and that he was also approached at the same time, no doubt, by the Conservative organization. However, I am not prepared to admit that perjury was committed by either side. But I am prepared to suggest that one side or the other has lied barefacedly in this house.
I feel that this question should not have been submitted to the house and it is precisely the irresponsible attitude of the hon. member for Labelle which is to blame. He behaved like a six-year old boy, with as much sense as an eight-year old no doubt. He boasted, showing off, that all the political parties wanted him to join their ranks and it is probably following a meeting with a member of the Liberal or the Conservative party that the hon. member for Labelle saw that it would be wise for him to make in parliament a flamboyant and untimely statement charging that the Liberals had tried to bribe him, promising him large election funds and the advantages of the party in office.
Mr. Speaker, I wish also to point out to the house that at the beginning of the proceedings of the committee on privileges and elections,
Privileges and Elections Committee the hon. member for Labelle once again showed his irresponsibility and replied rudely to the questions put to him by the members of the committee.
There again he acted as a six year old child, with perhaps, the reasoning of a two-year old. He believed he was even more important than the committee itself. He paraded like a "smart alec" before the committee members and he must bear the full responsibility for it. And if, today, his reputation is blemished in any way he only has himself to blame.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) was saying a moment ago that we wanted to get him. Not at all Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, we want to "get" somebody else.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke also said that we moved an amendment because we wanted to bring out the truth out of revenge. There again, Mr. Speaker, this is false. I feel no animosity whatsoever against the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) or against the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) and if we are proposing an amendment, it is not out of revenge.
As a matter of fact, as you said a while ago, Mr. Speaker, this amendment recommends that this report be referred back to the committee on privileges and elections and we suggest that, if judicial steps are to be taken, it is not up to the members of parliament to do so. This will be a matter for the courts, should the matter come to that.
As I pointed out a while ago, I do not think there was perjury on either side, in the literal sense of the word; but there were fibs on both sides. I suggest that both parties lied to the house, that they tried to show astuteness and wiliness, as it is the old parties' characteristic to act in such a way.
We do not want to be taken in by lies; neither do we want to be the accomplices of this extraparliamentary or parliamentary action. We do not intend to favour one party more than the other and that is the reason why I maintain that the whole responsibility must be assumed by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard). He behaved like a six-year old child.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Shall the motion carry?


David Réal Caouette: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.

Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I rise on a question of privilege. Because the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas has changed her name to Mrs. Jean Wadds I request, Mr. Speaker, that you take note so that all the necessary changes may be made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am in order, but I should like, if I may, on behalf of those on this side to welcome this new member to the house, and to assure her that while she was away something of beauty and charm was missing from our deliberations. Mr. Speaker, the exuberance of my observation has nothing to do with the fact that perhaps her new happiness and new domestic responsibilities will prevent her standing for parliamentary office.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if one is allowed to speak on an occasion such as this, to join in the felicitous words that have been uttered by the Prime Minister, and to show that unanimity for which this house from time to time becomes famous, I should like to say how very happy we all are about the hon. member's happiness. The only source of disagreement is in the last suggestion made by the Prime Minister. We on this side of the house want her to continue to represent her constituents.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
dumping of raw sewage into great lakes 
Question No. 717-Mr. McMillan: (Supplementary)
In connection with the strong recommendation by the international joint commission to cease dumping raw sewage and other waste products in the great lakes system (a) what program has been decided on in Canada to this end (b) how many American and Canadian communities dump raw sewage, directly or indirectly, into the great lakes system (c) have the American people assumed any time limit on any program to clean up the water in the great lakes system by sewage disposal plants, elimination of detergents and other wastes etc.?
['1. Commenced 1956 and completed 1959.\n2.\t$5,500,000.\n3.\tNo.\n4.\tThe accounting system does not bring out the costs of maintenance of the actual runway, but total expenditures for operation of the airport from commencement of operations in the fiscal year 1958-59 to March 31, 1964, amount to $314,324.\n5.\tTo March 31, 1964, $31,097.\n6.\tAccording to dominion bureau of statistics, 1961 census, there were 1,248 persons in the local improvement district of Inuvik. The airport, however, serves as distribution point to a much larger area.']
Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: (b) 159 communities in the United States with a population in 1960 of 356,596 are discharging untreated or raw sewage into the great lakes basin, (c) Although no time limit has been set for these communities to provide sewage treatment, some of them will soon be doing so in accordance with state schedules, assisted by provisions of the federal water pollution control act. Under this act, financial assistance is extended through construction grants for building municipal treatment works under priority programs established by the states.



Mr. Caouelle: 1.	How many copies of the Canadian Patent Office Record are printed each week?
2.	What does a weekly printing of this publication cost?
3.	Is this publication published in the two languages or in English only?
4.	For what reason do members receive an edition in which only the cover is bilingual, the rest being in English?
5.	Are there plans to make this publication a completely bilingual one in order that French Canadians may benefit fully from it?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: 1.	On the average, 950 copies of the Canadian Patent Record are printed each week.
2.	Weekly publication costs vary between $3,000 and $4,000 depending on the number of patents delivered during the week and the number of pages of each issue.
3.	The publication includes a descriptive memorandum of each patent in French or English as the case may be. The summary of the patent is printed in the same language as the descriptive memorandum (specification) which, under section 20 of the regulations, must be entirely in English or in French.
Questions
4.	It is not true to say that there is an English edition only. In fact, there is but one edition which is printed in English and in French depending on the language used, in each case, in the patent application. The cover is in both official languages.
5.	At present such an edition does not seem a necessity since the demand for this publication is very limited. Moreover since a translated document is legally binding just like an original one, the risk of mistakes could give rise to serious litigations considering the technical nature of the summaries.


RESEARCH INTO NEW USES FOR COAL
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Has the government made any progress with Its announced program to give special attention to step up research into new uses for coal and, if so (a) what is the nature and the extent of any steps taken in this regard (b) in what way does the government think that any such steps will halt the rapid decline in the economy of communities dependent on the coal industry?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: (a) The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has been unable, due to an increasing demand for more research in all of its disciplines, to assign more of its facilities toward a stepped-up program of research into new uses for coal. We have continued to maintain essential services to the coal industry and the dominion coal board as well as to improve the design of combustion equipment to slow down the rate of loss of the thermal power market.
(b) Provision is made in this year's estimates for an expenditure by the dominion coal board for professional and special services. It is intended that this provision should be used in research projects to support present markets and develop new outlets. In this development, consideration will be given to new uses for coal.
All research directed to the maintenance of existing markets and the development of new outlets has an effect on coal production. 2J per cent over 1962 while figures for the six months ending June 30, 1964 show a further increase of 4J per cent over the same period in 1963.


INUVIK AIRPORT-RUNWAY CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Cyr: 1.	In what year were the runways built In Inuvik in the Northwest Territories?

Questions
2.	What amount of money did the Department of Transport allocate for the purchase of lands and the construction of runways including engineering services?
3.	Did any private industries contribute to the
cost of this project?
4.	What amount of money has the Department of Transport allocated to the maintenance of the runways at Inuvik since the commencement of operations?
5.	What amount of money did the Department of Transport receive from airlines using the runways?
6.	How many people reside in the immediate vicinity of Inuvik?


Hon. J. W. Piclcersgill (Minister of Transport):: 1. Commenced 1956 and completed 1959.
2.	$5,500,000.
3.	No.
4.	The accounting system does not bring out the costs of maintenance of the actual runway, but total expenditures for operation of the airport from commencement of operations in the fiscal year 1958-59 to March 31, 1964, amount to $314,324.
5.	To March 31, 1964, $31,097.
6.	According to dominion bureau of statistics, 1961 census, there were 1,248 persons in the local improvement district of Inuvik. The airport, however, serves as distribution point to a much larger area.



CONTRACT METHODS FOR D.E.W. LINE SUPPLY

['I shall have to take this question as notice.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. See answers to questions 797 and 798 in Hansard of May 4 and May 6, respectively.
2.	Differences in method result from the differences in the areas served, routings followed, availability and experience, as well as from the nature of the arrangements with the U.S. authorities.



Mr. Mullally: 1.	What was the federal contribution to the province of Prince Edward Island for each of the following fiscal years, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 (estimated) under the following: (a) unconditional grants-itemized (b) conditional grants-itemized (c) payments to individuals (i) unemployment payments (ii) family allowances (iii) old age security (iv) all others?
2.	What is the total amount of all payments for each fiscal year mentioned above?
3.	What is the per capita contribution in each category and how does this compare with the per capita contribution to the other nine provinces?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1.	(a) Unconditional grants
Statutory subsidies	
Tax rental payments1'*	
Payment in lieu of provincial succession duty	
Equalization	
Stabilization	
Atlantic provinces adjustment grant	
50 per cent of federal income tax on certain public utilities.
Sub-total	
1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65
preliminary estimated (in thousands of dollars)
657	657
1,776	355
-	50
2,811	3,073
193	-252
2,500	3,500
54	52
7,991	7,435
657	657
72	107
3,821	4,558
3,500	3,500
54	58
8,104	8,880
(') The federal government ceased to rent the provincial income tax field on January 1, 1962, and the provincial succession duty field on March 31, 1962.
[Mr. Cyr.i

Questions
1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65
preliminary estimated
1.
(b) Conditional grants
i.	Agriculture
Agricultural lime assistance	
Farm labour agreements	
Freight assistance to royal winter fair..
4-H clubs	
Compensation for disease losses	
ARDA	
Crop insurance	
Crop loss-compensation	
Sub-total	
ii.	Health
Hospital construction	
General public health	
Tuberculosis control	
Mental health	
Professional training	
Cancer control	
Medical rehabilitation and crippled children
Child and maternal health	
Disability advisory services	
Sub-total	
iii.	Hospital insurance	
iv.	Welfare
Old age assistance	
Blind persons allowances	
Disabled persons allowances	
Unemployment assistance	
Rehabilitation of disabled persons	
National welfare grants	
Sub-total	
v.	Fitness and amateur sport	
vi.	Vocational training, etc.
Student aid	
Apprenticeship training	
Vocational high school training	
Technician training	
Trade and occupational training	
Training in co-op with industry	
Training of unemployed	
Training of disabled persons	
Training of technical teachers, etc	
Training for federal departments, etc....
Capital assistance-technical schools	
Language instruction of immigrants	
Sub-total	
vii.	Highways and transportation
Trans-Canada highway	
Airport development	
Hillsborough bridge-demolition	
(in thousands of dollars)
. 71	69	66	66. 5	5	5	5. 3	4	1	1. 4	2	2	2. 195	-	-	-.	15	90	115. -	11	25 54	100. 278	106	243	289. 18	134	80	147. 141	171	169	. 29	29	30	95	74	74	. 26	15	19	274. 15	16	16	. 13	11	13	7	11	7	-	1	1	1. 344	462	409	422. 1,382	1,674	1,922	1,900. 249	375	395	454. 40	47	47	55. 259	312	311	361173	194	400	275. 3	3	12	15 8. 724	931	1,165	1,168[DOT] -	30	9	46. 6	6	5	5-	-	10	1044	28	47	4740	23	100	100 15 10029	88	80	1	2	3	51	2	2	580	826	1,420	550-	2	1	i201	977	1,668	843300	66	500	460150	-	-	-	200	-	-
Sub-total
266
460

Questions
1. (b) Conditional grants-concluded
	1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65
		preliminary estimated (in thousands of dollars)		
viii. Resources development				
Construction of fishing vessels	
29	-	11	7Industrial development-fisheries	5	12	10Reforestation	21	2?1	Forest fire protection	
3	6	51	>
40Forest access roads	1	2|	Forest stand improvement	12	10j	20Camp ground and picnic area	-	10	Roads to resources	904	900	1,000Sub-total	949	9/3	1,077ix. Civil defence	
16	17	30	34x. Municipal winter works	
11	110	108	150Total	
4,425	5,522	7,027	6,3891. (c) Payments to individuals	i. Unemployment insurance benefits	
3,290	3,408	3,158	N.A.ii. Family allowances	
3,205	3,260	3,274	3,287iii. Old age security	
5,152	5,963	6,493	6,572iv. Others	War veterans pensions	
1,814	1,829	1,801	1,800War veterans allowances	
919	1,005	999	1,000
2. The above federal contributions to the provinces or individuals resident in the provinces for the following fiscal years are set out below:
	1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65
			preliminary	estimated
		(in thousands of dollars)		
Unconditional grants	
543,366	275,198	252,818	326,327Conditional grants	
606,453	846,202	880,992	902,058Unemployment insurance benefits	
454,739	403,191	365,655	N.A.Family allowances	
519,537	530,225	537,045	544,735Old age security	
624,668	733,857	807,827	881,425War veterans pensions	
163,462	161,777	159,537	156,800War veterans allowances	
75,019	81,398	82,708	84,600

Questions
3.	Per capita contributions to (a) Prince Edward Island, and (b) Other nine provinces.
1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)preliminary	estimated$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$Unconditional grants	....76.10	29.59	70.14	14.53	75.74	13.05	82.99	16.63Conditional grants	....42.14	33.27	52.09	45.63	65.67	46.61	59.71	46.92Unemployment insurance benefits	24.95	32.15	21.70	29.51	19.33	N.A.	N.A.Family allowances	....30.52	28.53	30.75	28.60	30.60	28.47	30.72	28.54Old age security	....49.07	34.23	56.25	39.51	60.68	42.74	61.42	45.83War veterans pensions	....17.28	8.93	17.42	8.68	16.83	8.47	16.82	8.12War veterans allowances	.... 8.75	4.09	9.48	4.36	9.33	4.36	9.34	4.38


* OPERATION OP AUTOMATIC ELEVATORS, WEST BLOCK
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	How many are employed in the west block to operate the automatic elevators?
2.	How many of the employees were experienced elevator operators when first employed as operators In west block?
3.	What was the cost of the automatic elevators?
4.	Were tenders called for non automatic elevators and, if so, what was the lowest tender?
5.	What is the justification for having operators to operate automatic elevators in the west block when they operate much quicker when on automatic?
elevators. This is normally done on new installations in order that the occupants can familiarize themselves with the equipment. The operators remained on duty until the close of the session. When the House of Commons opened in September 1963, elevator operators were not provided. However, representations were received from various members of parliament which resulted in assigning experienced operators to the elevators on October 15, 1963.


PUBLIC WORKS POSITIONS UNFILLED AFTER ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. Seven.
2.	Seven.
3.	$185,675.
4.	No.
5.	When the building was occupied in September 1962, operators were supplied for the


Mr. Aiken: 1.	What positions with the Department of Public Works in Ottawa have been advertised for competition by the civil service commission but remain unfilled?
2.	What is the reason, in each case, for inability to find a suitable applicant?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelels (Minister of Public Works):: 1 and 2-
Position
Librarian
Economist
Assistant chief, emergency planning
Assistant purchasing and stores officer
Building construction inspectors
Reason position unfilled Applications still being received Interviews not yet completed.
This position is to be readvertised by the civil service commission, as it was necessary to change the qualifications.
Appointment delayed due to appeal by an unsuccessful candidate.
This position was advertised as part of a group which also included positions at Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal. It is expected that an offer of employment will be sent by the civil service commission to the successful Ottawa candidate shortly.

Questions
Position
Automatic control technicians-heating and air conditioning
Survey and construction supervisor-harbours and rivers engineering
Supervisors 3, building services
Job evaluation and organization analyst
Mechanical engineer- controlled environments
Planning and research officers
Building services engineers-mechanical
Supervisor of construction accounting-bilingual
Public information officer 2-French
Senior personnel and staff development officers
Bilingual engineers and bilingual architects
Reason position unfilled
Interviews recently completed. Successful candidate will be advised shortly.
None of the applicants met the qualifications required for this position. It will be readvertised by the civil service commission.
Interviews not yet completed.
The successful candidate is employed by another government department. The date of his assignment is being negotiated.
The offer has been sent to the successful candidate by the civil service commission.
Applications now being received.
This position was advertised as part of a group which also included vacancies at Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax. Applicants are presently being interviewed.
Applications now being received.
None of the applicants met the advertised qualifications. Applications now being received.
Applications now being received.


APPROVED ARDA PROJECTS
Mr. Noble: 1.	How many projects have been approved for aid under ARDA?
2.	How many of these are located in Ontario?
3.	How many are located in each of the other nine provinces?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1. The number of projects approved under the ARDA agreement to July 31, 1964 total 476.
2.	The number of approved ARDA projects located in Ontario total 29.
3.	Approved ARDA projects located in the other nine provinces are as follows: Newfoundland, 38; Prince Edward Island, 21; Nova Scotia, 40; New Brunswick, 29; Quebec, 122; Manitoba, 51; Saskatchewan, 98; Alberta, 29; British Columbia, 19.


LABOUR RETRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Douglas: [Mr. Deschatelets.)
1.	What is the total amount paid to a single person under the federal-provincial labour retraining program?
2.	What is the total amount paid to a married person under the federal-provincial labour retrain-vincial labour retraining program?
3.	What allowance is made for each dependant under the federal-provincial labour retraining program?
4.	How many persons are presently registered under the program in Canada?
5.	How many drop-outs have there been for each month since December 31, 1963?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1, 2 and 3. Allowances paid to persons attending retraining programs (training of unemployed) are determined by individual provinces with approval from the federal Minister of Labour under the terms of the technical and vocational training agreement. These provincial allowances are reduced by the amount of any unemployment insurance benefits received by students while in training. Current allowances provided in the various provinces are as follows:

			Single
			at
Province			home
			$
Newfoundland	up to	30Prince Edward Island	it	it	10Nova Scotia	ti	tt	10New Brunswick	ft	it	8Quebec	ft	it	15Ontario (see below)	Manitoba	it	ti	12Saskatchewan	ti	tt	18Alberta	ti	tt	2British Columbia	tt	tt	15Yukon	it	ti	50
Northwest Territories
Rate
Ontario	per	day

Category A, single or equivalent trainees who, in the opinion of the appropriate provincial authority, need not move to take training	5
Category B, single or equivalent trainees who, in the opinion of the appropriate provincial authority, has had to move to take training	6
Category C, trainee with a wholly dependent person who, in the opinion of the appropriate provincial authority, need to move to take training 9
Category D, trainee with a wholly dependent person who, must, in the opinion of the appropriate provincial authority, maintain a second residence as a result of moving to another centre to take training	11
4.	As of May 31, 1964, 19,311 persons were registered.
5.	Drop-outs occurred as follows: January, 1964, 450; February, 1964, 613; March, 1964, 452; April, 1964, 2,254; May, 1964, 1,493.


SUBSIDIES UNDER MARITIME COMMISSION
Mr. Barnett: What, for each of the fiscal years commencing with 1920-21, are expenditures made through the subsidies branch of the Canadian maritime commission on the (a) Atlantic seacoast of Canada (b) Pacific seacoast of Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS TO CANADIANS WORKING IN MAINE
Mr. Perron: Is it the view of the Department of Labour that there is no longer any hope for an agreement, between the unemployment insurance commission, and the Canadian government on the one part and the social security authorities of the state of Maine, under which Canadians working in that state could claim unemployment insurance benefits upon their return to Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: After a prolonged period of negotiation between the Canadian unemployment insurance commission and the Maine employment security commission the latter advised on October 30 last that it did not feel it would be in the best interests of Maine to enter into an agreement at this time.
In communicating this decision the Maine employment security commission expressed the hope that the matter might be re-examined some time in the future.
In all of these negotiations the unemployment insurance commission has had the support of the bureau of employment security at Washington but since unemployment insurance is a state matter the concluding of reciprocal agreement with Canada is the sovereign right of the state.
It is the opinion of the unemployment insurance commission, therefore, that prospects for the concluding of an agreement with Maine in the foreseeable future are dim.
IMr. Pickersgill.]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether his department is giving study to the contents of the momentous interview between the Canadian, Lord Thomson of Fleet and Mr. Khrushchev, and in particular reference to Mr. Khrushchev's acceptance of the need for a summit conference to arrive at an agreement regarding nuclear disarmament. Second, what has the government to say regarding Mr. Khrushchev's suggestion that in so far as Cyprus is concerned the British forces there should withdraw, as well as Mr. Khrushchev's threat, if I might use that expression, to Turkey, all of which were dealt with during the course of the interview?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the interview which Lord Thomson, formerly a Canadian, had with Mr. Khrushchev was, of course, a very interesting bit of news which came to us over the week end. We will want to give careful study to what Lord Thomson had to report about Chairman Khrushchev's proposal for important meetings after November next.
We will also give careful study to the statement attributed to the Soviet union in respect of the action that the Soviet union would take in the event of further intervention on the part of Turkey. However, it is noteworthy that what the Soviet union, and Mr. Khrushchev in particular, had to say on this subject is conditional. It appears that the Soviet union has given an undertaking to Cyprus on a conditional basis. I think this underlines the vital importance of United Nations efforts to consolidate the cease fire, since in view of the position now taken publicly by the Soviet union it is more than ever obvious that a recourse to violence must at all cost be avoided. Second, the public position taken by the Soviet union points up the difficult nature of the political balance of forces in the security council.
I would not want to go beyond this without careful analysis of the statement and an opportunity of examining all the circumstances involved. But I thank my right hon. friend for directing the attention of the house to these important statements.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to say whether any representations have been made to the Soviet ambassador here regarding the request on the part of Archbishop Makarios for Soviet assistance, and the rather unusual reaction thereto on the part of Mr. Khrushchev, that such assistance would be given, which is certainly a situation completely inconsistent with the commonwealth relationship?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the ambassador of the Soviet union is on leave, but on Friday last I asked the charge d'affaires of the Soviet union if he would be good enough to come and see me. We had a long talk on Friday afternoon about this and other matters.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister give us any report now as to the outcome of the meeting between the secretary general of the United Nations and the nine participating forces? Have any decisions been reached with reference to the extension of the terms of reference for the United Nations forces, and are representations to be made, as a result of this meeting, to the government of Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government, of course, has made representations on this question. My hon. friend will recall the report I made on Friday. We are now waiting to hear further from the secretary general.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask a further supplementary question. I think the minister has misunderstood me. I am not asking whether he has made representations, but asking for the outcome of the meeting which was held last week between the secretary general, U Thant, and the nine contributing nations. The minister told us that at this meeting they would be discussing an extension of the terms of reference. Has any agreement been reached by which the secretary general of the United Nations will be making representations to the government of Cyprus for an extension of the terms of reference of the UN peace keeping force?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: I made a report on this last Friday, indicating that the secretary general has not yet made a reply to us about representations which he himself is making to the government of Cyprus through General Thimayya and through Mr. Galo Plaza, whom he dispatched to Cyprus primarily for this purpose.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact the minister stated in his report the other day that the meeting had only begun an hour before he made the report, I am wondering whether he has a final report to make as to the final outcome?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: No. When I made my report the other day, the meeting had taken place the day before. The secretary general was continuing his discussions and had indicated that he was communicating through Mr. Galo Plaza and General Thimayya with the government of Cyprus. The meetings with participating countries will be continuing.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does he have comments or a statement to make concerning the statement of the premier of the Soviet union to the effect that the Turkish attack against Cyprus villages had to be made with the support of members of NATO, particularly of the United States and Great Britain and consequently of the Canadian forces?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked me what was my reaction to Mr. Khrushchev's statement and I answered him. Consequently, I have no further comment to make for the moment.


Mr.  W. B. Nesbill@Oxford: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs been in touch with the secretary general of the United Nations, either yesterday or this morning, with regard to the unfortunate illness of the mediator, the eminent Finnish diplomat, who was apparently taken seriously ill in Geneva? Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether or not this gentleman will be able to continue his duties at the present time, which are obviously of some urgency, and if not is consideration being given and has there been consultation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs by the

Inquiries of the Ministry secretary general with regard to the appointment of a new mediator as quickly as possible?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house generally regrets the very serious and untimely illness of the mediator who was on his way to Athens to report on the vital negotiations which have been taking place in Geneva, negotations which carry with them, I believe, some hope. What action the secretary general will now take with regard to the mediator I am not now in a position to say. Our ambassador has been in touch with the secretariat. However, the decision as to a successor is one which, under the security council resolution, rests entirely with the secretary general.


Mr. Nesbitt:: A further supplementary question. In this regard I cannot ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to divulge the name or names of the person or persons who might be under consideration, but has the secretary general of the United Nations consulted in this respect with the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between our ambassador and the secretariat.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can now give the house any information in connection with the reported withdrawal of Greek forces from NATO command, the implications of this action as far as the Cyprus situation is concerned and also as far as the general situation of NATO is concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend said Greek withdrawal?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. gentleman mean the withdrawal of certain Turkish air force units?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I understand through the press gallery that this afternoon the Greeks announced that they had withdrawn some, if not all, of their forces assigned to NATO.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall have to take this question as notice.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is he in a position to confirm or to deny the news to the effect that he forced Rear Admiral Brock, chief of the Canadian Navy in the Atlantic, to retire? Could he also give us explanations in that connection and tell us that the statements made by this officer during a sitting of a committee on national defence in Halifax are not the reason of his forced retirement?

Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, one consequence of the integration process is the fact that we now have on strength more officers than we have positions for. It is therefore necessary to retire some in advance of the normal compulsory retirement age. Rear Admiral Brock has a distinguished war record. He has served this country well and long. It is therefore a matter of regret that we have to retire officers of his calibre. I can assure my hon. friend that his retirement is in no way connected with the visit of the parliamentary committee or anything which may have transpired at that time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question. I wonder whether I might ask the minister why this particular officer, who is one of the most outstanding of all of the senior officers in the Canadian forces, is being retired at the age of 51, with still four years of his normal service to go, with the consequent considerable increase in cost to the taxpayer through payment of his pension, when ordinarily he would have received his pay, which some other officer will be receiving in the meantime? It would seem a most peculiar way of dealing with senior officers in the Canadian forces-retiring an officer of this distinction at such an age, with the consequent loss of his abilities which are very necessary to the forces, and at the same time bringing about a great increase in the cost of the services to the taxpayer.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated all along that it was necessary to effect economies in the Department of National Defence.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no economy in that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As a result of the integration process we will be able to undertake our tasks quite satisfactorily with fewer people. This proposition has been widely applauded not only in this house but across the country. I do not think it was ever understood-I would be surprised if it was-that the reductions would only take place in the junior ranks; the reductions will take place right across the board at all rank levels. It is unfortunate that experienced people, whether they be of junior or senior rank, must be retired in advance of normal compulsory retirement age. The alternative is to keep on the strength of the Department of National Defence personnel for whom there is no further employment.


John George Diefenbaker: Where is the economy in this action?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The economy is that there are fewer personnel required, so there are consequent savings which can be diverted to the acquisition of equipment. I think all hon. members agree that the cuts should be proportional throughout the rank structure, and not applied just to junior ranks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A further supplementary question. In view of the fact that officers of the rank of commodore and brigadier, and equivalent, have been and are being promoted to the rank of rear admiral, and equivalent, Which is the rank of Admiral Brock, how can there possibly be any savings by retiring a man four years before his normal retirement age, a man of outstanding abilities, and promoting somebody else from a lower rank essentially to take his place?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there are two points I should make here. First of all, the total number of senior officers under the integrated service and as a result of integration at national defence headquarters will be substantially less. A lesser number are required and fewer will be on strength. In respect to promotion of some younger men, we have a problem which must be faced. Many of our best wartime commanders are coming to the compulsory retirement age at approximately the same time. There is some variation of course, but within a rather narrow band of years a very high proportion of the most skilled second world war commanders will reach compulsory retirement age. One thing we must do if we are to maintain the competence and the operational effectiveness of our forces through future years is to promote some younger men, some junior officers, to give them command experience so
Inquiries of the Ministry that they will be able to carry on the distinguished capability of the Canadian armed forces in the years which lie ahead.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would now give us some definite reasons for this, I think, completely indefensible move, because all he has given us so far is generalities.


Mr. Brewin:: A supplementary question-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a supplementary question for the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Greenwood on a supplementary.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the minister if the enforced retirement of Admiral Brock had anything to do with his expressed views about the role the Canadian navy should be playing? Otherwise I must say I would find this retirement quite inexplicable.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I have already stated, Mr. Speaker, that was not the reason for his retirement. The views expressed to the committee at the time of the visit had no direct relationship to the matter.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Can the minister state if the decision to retire Admiral Brock was taken before or after his expression of views?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was taken before that visit, Mr. Speaker. I think it is fair to say that many factors enter into these judgments and I do not think it would be the least bit helpful to the morale of the forces or to any of the individuals concerned to expose them in detail.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Can the minister say when the decision was taken?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not precisely.


John George Diefenbaker: The same old alibi.


Mr. Maclnnis:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have to be recognized.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a further supplementary question.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not see any possible opportunity for raising a point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am giving the floor to the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I was about to bring up a point of order because of a remark by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the effect that I had not been recognized. Possibly his remark is on Hansard. I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it not true that the man who is replacing Admiral Brock is senior in years, so under those circumstances how could he qualify to replace Admiral Brock?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not recall the exact ages offhand, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure my hon. friend that the Royal Canadian Navy will be in good hands and that the flag officer designate, east coast, is a man of excellent experience and will be a first class commander.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In effecting the economies which the minister so often brings before the house is it the intention of the department to delete the position of one of the ministers of national defence?


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the retirement of Admiral Brock, forced or otherwise, anything to do with a disagreement with the Associate Minister of National Defence?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can say categorically that there is no disagreement whatsoever.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence which may appear to arise out of some earlier questions that were asked but, in my mind, it does not. It is related to the question of the reorganization of the Department of National Defence and the consequential reduction in the number of employees. I should like to ask the minister if it is the policy of the department that any jobs which have heretofore been performed by civilian employees will henceforth be performed by members of the armed forces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is no policy to that effect, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, the policy is that to the extent possible we will maintain the present relationship. 1 understand there have been some individual cases, however, where jobs previously performed by civilians are being presently performed by servicemen. This is something we will look into in the process of reorganization to ascertain whether they can best be performed by civilians or servicemen. The present circumstances, therefore, can be regarded as temporary until we have had a chance to look at the over-all organization.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask a supplementary question? Does the minister not think it would be much more satisfactory for some over-all policy to be developed rather than have civilian employees replaced, without regard to their seniority within the civilian establishment of the department.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The general policy, Mr. Speaker, is to employ the civilian or military personnel, having regard for the requirements of the job. Some jobs can best be performed by civilians, and this was commented on by the royal commission on government organization. There are other jobs which, for obvious reasons, have to be performed by military personnel, and this includes some categories of jobs where personnel are required to do certain things in an emergency which one would not expect, nor could one enforce, civilians to do; but the over-all policy will be to determine the actual requirements for the job and fill it accordingly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which arises out of the questions that have just been asked. Is it the intention of the government to grant to public service employees, on the termination of their services, benefits similar to those being granted to military personnel? I ask this in view of the resolution recently passed by the national defence employees association, a resolution that appears to be eminently fair and reasonable.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think this question was answered earlier in the session. I do not have the exact Hansard reference at the moment, so perhaps I could send it to my right hon. friend later.


John George Diefenbaker: I am referring to a resolution passed within the last week or so by the national defence employees association, seeking similar benefits. It certainly was not dealt with prior to the meeting of the association. Is this resolution receiving consideration on the part of the government, because it seems eminently fair?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the decision of the government which was previously promulgated was that it would not be possible to have the same benefits for civilian employees because of the effect this would have on civilian employees in other areas of the government service. That is the decision as I recall it. I am sure, however, all the resolutions passed by the national defence employees association will be studied by the department when they have been submitted to us.



INQUIRY AS TO REVISION OF QUEEN'S AND REGIMENTAL COLOURS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence or the Associate Minister of National Defence whether either one of them has issued instructions to any person or persons to develop designs for the present Queen's and regimental colours for the purpose of eliminating the union jack on such colours?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the Queen's and regimental colours no such thought has been given.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister assure the house that no action will be taken to alter the Queen's or any regimental colours by eliminating the union jack on any such colours?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is no thought of that whatever.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if the Associate Minister of National Defence will give the same assurance?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Associate Minister of National Defence claims equality with the Minister of National Defence in the performance of his duties. I am entitled to ask him that question and get an answer from him. I repeat, will the Associate Minister of National Defence
Inquiries of the Ministry give the same assurance as was given by the Minister of National Defence?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of National Defence answered that question he was speaking for the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, if I may change the subject, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice.
Is he in a position to inform the house of the results of the police action taken in order to retrace Hal Banks, and to tell us whether the latter appeared in court this morning to answer the charge of having induced seamen to abandon ship, in October last?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this morning Hal Banks did not appear in court, as he was ordered to and that, consequently, warrant for his arrest was issued by the court. But I am not aware of the efforts made to date-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us, for instance, whether Mr. Banks has been traced? Does the Department of Justice know where Mr. Banks is at the present time?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, I do not know, at the present time, the whereabouts of Mr. Banks.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the failure of Mr. Banks to appear, will the Department of Justice decide finally to cancel the other bail granted to him?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this question is under consideration and the decision which will be taken will have to be consistent with the best interests of the crown and of justice. But the fact that a bench warrant was issued in another case might affect the decision. [Text]


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has Banks' bail been estreated?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Guy Favreau: You mean in the case where he was to appear this morning?


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes.


Guy Favreau: I have not been advised as to the disposal made with regard to his bail. All I know is that a bench warrant has been issued.


David Vaughan Pugh: Will the minister look into that?


Guy Favreau: I will.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. My question arises out of the presence of pickets at all entrances to the west block of the parliament buildings. As there are many members who very much dislike crossing picket lines, I wonder whether the minister is able to report to the house on the reasons for the presence of pickets around the west block today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the current picketing is a protest on the part of a local union against a subcontractor who is alleged not to have asked local unions to provide labour and also alleging substandard wages. The fair wage division of the Department of Labour is investigating the matter because the contract is a federal one.



POSSIBLE INCREASE IN OILSEED EXPORTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforf-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister inform the house as to what the findings and recommendations were of the oilseed trade mission which went to Japan for the purpose of looking into the possibility of increasing our oilseed trade with that country? Is there a growing market for Canadian rape-seed and flax, and what were the recommendations of the mission?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me this is a very good question for the order paper.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, the mission has returned and I am sure the farmers of the west will be interested in their recommendations.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the
Opposition.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio and ask him whether or not within the last two or three days his office has been inquiring from one or more manufacturers for prices for the delivery of 100,000 4x6 three leaf pennants? At whose request are these tenders or suggested tenders being sought and on whose behalf is he acting in this connection?


An hon. Member:: Speak tenderly.


Hon. Yvon Dupuis (Minister without Portfolio):: I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the great interest he takes in what I do. I did ask what it would cost to get bumper strips, as they say in Shakespeare's tongue, showing the new flag design which is now proposed to the house.
I did it as a private individual and I would be happy if they were available soon so that I could buy some myself, not for the government but for myself, because I am proud of that flag.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the interest of the hon. gentleman is of course very much appreciated. Were these 100,000 bumper strips for his constituency or whom were they for? [Translation]


Yvon Dupuis: I asked for 100,000 because I thought the Conservative members would probably want to buy several of them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is a very frivolous answer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -and also a fatuous one. I ask the minister: Is this a personal purchase? If it is, no questions will be asked, but it came from his department.


An hon. Member:: He has no department.


Yvon Dupuis: If my hon. friend was listening he heard that I sought this information for my own personal use.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I was asked on Friday by the Leader of the Opposition to table certain documents. The officials of my department are collecting this information and I shall be able to table these documents tomorrow. Because of the delay of one day, I think I will be able to table more information than was requested by the Leader of the Opposition.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Frontenac):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or his parliamentary secretary. On August 12, the minister stated in reply to a question of mine concerning the move of C. W. Fisher, precision manufacturers, from Peterborough to the United States, that the principal reason for this move was the level of United States tariff. I should like to ask the minister if he is aware of the fact that Mr. Fisher has denied his statement. Mr. Fisher has said, "We would not have considered moving part of our operations to the United States in the foreseeable future if it had not been for the sales tax."
I should like to repeat my question. Will the minister advise the house what steps are being taken to prevent further movement of such industries to other countries and protect skilled labour in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest, in view of the information desired, that this is a question for the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister check into the cause of the death of 10,000 turkeys out of a flock of 16,000 in western Canada, and will he consider reporting to the house his findings in order to avoid a repetition of this sort of 20220-437
Inquiries of the Ministry thing, if there is an indication that a communicable disease might be transmitted from one flock to another?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minisfer of Agriculture):: I would be glad to look into the situation for the hon. member if he will give me the source of his information.


Stanley James Korchinski: I will give the source.



SUGGESTED RESTRICTION OF EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the relatively poor hay crop in eastern Canada and because of the continuing need in the coming winter season for fodder for the cattle of eastern Canada, will the minister consider taking steps to prevent the export of hay from Canada to other countries until such time as we are assured that our own livestock will have sufficient feed for the coming winter?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I met the minister of agriculture from Ontario and his deputy several days ago, and I would suppose many of these programs or suggestions would have to be initiated by the province. So far they have not made this sort of representation.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As a supplementary, has the minister received a request for assistance for farmers in similar circumstances in western Quebec, from the government of the province of Quebec?


Harry William Hays: Not as yet, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to answer my questions of Thursday and Friday relating to the possible amendment of the Canadian constitution, and whether this would be done in another country or in Canada, in the light of our own sovereignty over our own affairs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the information I have received from those who are competent to advise on
6910	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry this constitutional and legal question is as follows:
It is true that the parliament of Canada, that is to say the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, did in 1952 enact a measure in direct amendment of the British North America Acts. However, the authority to make this amendment was conferred on the parliament of Canada by the British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949 which was enacted by the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, assembled in the parliament of the United Kingdom.


John George Diefenbaker: What year was that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was 1949. The authority of the parliament of Canada to amend the British North America Acts is therefore derived from and limited by this 1949 act of the United Kingdom parliament.
Any amendment outside the scope of section 91 (1) is therefore beyond the authority of the parliament of Canada, and must still be enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom.
A further amendment to establish a complete amending formula, or to re-enact the British North America Acts as a statute of the parliament of Canada can, in my view, be made at the present time only by the United Kingdom parliament. Of course, if an appropriate amending formula were so enacted, a new constitution could be enacted pursuant thereto.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of this answer, I wonder if the Prime Minister does not agree that the matter should be discussed at the Charlottetown conference, not only the getting of the constitution home to Canada, but the way we do it? Would it not be desireable to find a way so that at the earliest moment we could make our own enactment, even if we had to do that after the United Kingdom had acted?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Indeed, I do. I have every hope that, not only will this matter be discussed at the Charlottetown conference beginning in September, but that progress will be made there.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the latter statement made by the Prime Minister, I should like to recall when we were endeavouring to bring this about there were two provinces, Quebec and Saskatchewan, that would not consent. Have Quebec and Saskatchewan
[Mr. Pearson.l

now indicated that they are prepared to agree to the repatriation of the constitution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I can say is that I have some reason to hope we will be able to agree on a formula very shortly which will overcome the difficulties which my hon. friend and the provincial premiers of that date experienced. I know he will be as happy as I, if that could be done.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister did not answer the specific question. Have there been consultations with the governments of Quebec and Saskatchewan to remove the basis upon which they more or less vetoed action in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There have been consultations with all the provinces, including Quebec and Saskatchewan, and particularly in regard to the obstacles that were encountered at the last meeting.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Is the Prime Minister contemplating
the convening of a special meeting of the provincial and federal governments to deal with the repatriation formula?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There will be a meeting within a short time at Charlottetown, and I cannot imagine a better place or a better time in which to make progress on these matters. If as a result of that meeting a special meeting is required, I am sure we can arrange that. I hope that at the forthcoming meeting real progress can be made.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I
ask a supplementary question? Will the Prime Minister give this house the assurance that any change in the formula proposed by the previous government-and I certainly hope there will be a change-will be made known to this house before it is discussed with the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the customary procedure should be followed in this matter. We should take advantage of the forthcoming meeting to discuss this matter. When the heads of the governments of the provinces met a week or so ago in Alberta, they took advantage of their meeting to discuss the matter informally. I was delighted that they did. I can assure my hon. friend that if and when a formula is agreed upon which is acceptable to all the provinces and the federal government, it will certainly then be brought to the house.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour?
Can the hon. gentleman confirm or deny the report to the effect that the vice president
of the international seafarers union is taking steps to prevent free elections within this union?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this question is on the same subject as was raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) last Friday. Since that time I have made inquiries regarding the reports mentioned on that date concerning candidates for election to office in the S.I.U. of Canada. I have learned this morning from the board of trustees that Mr. Andre Bansept the officer of the S.I.U. of Canada dismissed on Friday by the executive board of the S.I.U., has been ordered reinstated by the board of trustees pending investigation of the circumstances of the dismissal. The board of trustees are also investigating the movement of other members of the slate of officers proposed to run in opposition to the existing elected officers of the union. Where such movements may limit the effectiveness of any campaigning for office, the trustees will take appropriate action.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On
a supplementary question has the Minister of Labour's attention been drawn to the fact that Rene Turcotte of Montreal has been moved to Newfoundland just at the precise moment that he was running as a candidate for the position of executive vice president, following in the footsteps of the two people I referred to on Friday and will the minister give us some assurance that this matter will also be looked into by the board of trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe this must be one of the two additional cases under investigation by the board of trustees.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary 20220-437i
Canadian Flag
of State. Since the C.B.C. is engaged in a competitive business and the C.B.S. has bought the New York Yankees, what team is the C.B.C. going to buy for us?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, August 13, consideration of the motion by Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag ol Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. More.
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent, Ont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this most important debate and I make no apologies to anyone for occupying the time of the house with my contribution. I wish to say at the outset that I am going to speak in full support of the amendment and the subamendment.
I am fully aware of the gravity of the problem and of the gravity with which the people of Canada are beginning to look on this entire question. I am also well aware that my speech will not go down in the records as a great piece of oratory, nor will it be taken up by the press and radio and spread from coast to coast. It will not contain a great amount of research work on all the flags that have been flown in Canada. It may not contain the great principles that have been expounded by the leaders of the various parties, but I say in all honesty I regard myself as just an ordinary citizen of this country, and if in this debate I can convey to the house the feelings, thinking and beliefs of the ordinary man in the street, the man in the barbershop, the man in the bakeshop, the man in the corner grocery, the man who has been retired, the school teacher-all the men who form this great middle class of the people of Canada, of which I have the honour to be a part-if I can do this and convey their thoughts to the house, I shall feel I am justly fulfilling my responsibility as a representative of the Canadian people.

Canadian Flag
We have heard various speeches made in this house. We have heard a great deal from members who represent the great province of Quebec. I must pay tribute to these men because they spoke I feel, in all sincerity; they tried to the best of their ability to put forward the feelings of the citizens they represent concerning this flag question. They have been very eloquent and they have pointed out in no uncertain terms the feelings of the people of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, there are nine other provinces and today I propose to do the best I can to deal with the question as seen from my segment of Ontario.
Like many other members, I have prepared a flag speech. Like many other members I have spent weeks in research on this subject, knowing its importance to Canada and to the Canadian people. I do not intend to use that speech today. I say this because I have been in my riding and in other ridings in northwestern Ontario in the past few week ends talking with the people on the streets and trying to find out what they think of the actions of parliament and of the government in connection with this matter. What do I hear on every street? The ordinary Canadian says: What in the world is going on in Ottawa? What concessions are we making to the province of Quebec? Are we, in fact, making concessions? We hear talk of a federal state of Canada. We hear talk of a republic. We hear talk of changing the names of various crown corporations. What is going on? We in Ontario have the right to know. What do the people of Quebec want? Where will it end? These are the questions the people in Ontario are asking today. This is what they are saying. They are asking: Have these people from Quebec a grievance? Is it a grievance which has grown up over the years? Can we meet and solve this problem? How serious is it? What is this great division which is building up in this country of ours? This is what they want to know. They want to know whether the people of Canada are being sold out by this government.
They are asking: What about the filibuster? What is this filibuster of which the newspapers speak? Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have a wrong conception of this debate because they cannot get the facts. They speak of a filibuster. It is interesting to note that in this entire session we have devoted less than 30 hours to this flag issue. How can that be considered as a filibuster? We have devoted just 30 hours to a matter as important to the people of Canada as the issue which is now before us. A filibuster indeed. Mr. 
Speaker, the ordinary man wants to know what is going on and the only way he can find out is through a debate in this house during which the principles are brought out.
A question I have often been asked, indeed the question I was asked most when I talked to the people I have the honour to represent was: How in the world did the government get itself into such a mess? I try to be honest. I try to give them the facts. I said no government could get itself into such a mess without constant practice. And this is what we have seen.
We talk about news. I am very interested in the news on this flag issue. At the beginning of this debate we saw what was called a march of flags on parliament hill. I went out to see this march of flags because I was interested. I saw what took place that night in the drizzling rain. I saw a file about six people wide-


Guy Favreau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must rise at this point and submit that now he has clearly announced the trend of his speech, the hon. member who has the floor is out of order.
The only matter which is presently before the house is the subamendment presented on August 13 by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) the text of which can be found at the bottom of page 6807 of Hansard for August 13. We all remember that the amendment is to the affect that the question of the flag be referred to the people of Canada for their opinion by way of a plebiscite. The subamendment reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the words:
"and that in such a plebiscite among the questions to be placed before the people should be the following-
And there are four questions listed for inclusion in the form of questionnaire to be sent out.
My point of order is as follows: The only question before this house concerns whether, assuming this matter is to be referred to the people by plebiscite, it is desirable that the four questions proposed by the hon. member for Regina City be included in the questionnaire.
When the first amendment was submitted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker), although there was objection from this side of the house to the debate veering on to a subject other than that of the amendment itself, the Chair ruled-and I bow to that decision-that since the amendment by the

Leader of the Opposition was in the nature of an alternative proposal to the original motion, debate should be entertained simultaneously on the two questions. If we admit the principle of this decision, that the two principal questions be discussed at the same time, it does not prevent our maintaining that the present position is far different. There is no question that the amendment to the amendment is not an alternative to either the first or to the second motion. It amounts, in effect, to a restriction of the amendment. So, I repeat, the only question before us is whether or not, assuming the amendment should carry, it would be desirable that the four questions sugegsted by the hon. member for Regina City in his amendment to the amendment be included in the questionnaire.
Therefore, I suggest that until such time as the amendment to the amendment has been disposed of, any discussion or debate pertaining to matters other than the questions mentioned in the subamendment to the amendment would be out of order.


Mr. Lambert:: I am frankly amazed at the virginal purity of the minister in putting forward this argument this afternoon. I find his choice of timing rather singular. I would draw to his attention the nature of the speech made by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) on Thursday night-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was before the
amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was on the amendment, at the time of the amendment. That was a very general speech. It went into a great deal of philosophy. It treated with the whole subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was before the amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was before the subamendment, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) would know if he had been listening. I say that my remarks were to the effect that the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) made his speech at a time when the discussion was on the amendment. If I follow the argument of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), the speech of the member for Hamilton East at that time was on the whole general philosophy of a flag, and it had no relationship at all in a limiting sense. Therefore it is rather singular for the minister to come in now and attempt to pick at a speech and limit the debate in the way he has done. If this applies in this debate, Mr. Speaker, it should have applied at all times.
Canadian Flag
May I say that the minister and his colleagues, with all due deference to the Chair, have been permitted to range far and wide in all types of debate. Relevancy is a most difficult thing, and a past master of this art is the Minister of Transport who, and I give him full credit, endeavours to follow the rules. In this regard he will recognize that when I occupied the chair you now occupy I did follow the rules in respect of relevancy much more closely than heretofore by some of my predecessors.
The Minister of Transport quite rightly indicated that one can make excursions and be relevant, because we are debating the whole question of a flag. Even a debate in respect of the purport of the subamendment is relevant. If I interpret the hon. member's remarks correctly, he is leading the discussion to the subject of choices, because the subamendment refers to four choices available within the amendment. Therefore, I put it to Your Honour that everything the hon. member for Kent (Ont.), (Mr. Danforth) said has been entirely relevant. I suggest to the Minister of Justice, if he now wishes to put forward this argument: Physician, first heal thyself. If you are going to suggest such a policy, then let us make sure everyone complies, and I hope the Minister of Justice will rise in his place as the leader of the government and instruct his colleagues to bear in mind the question of relevancy in all debates.
Therefore I submit that the remarks put forward by the Minister of Justice on this occasion are far too restrictive and have had no application in practice or otherwise in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since the the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has drawn my name into this discussion, I should like to make a few remarks. The hon. gentleman says that the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) had discussed the whole question of the flag generally as, I understand, have other hon. gentlemen, pursuant to a judgment made by Mr. Speaker in respect of the right hon. gentleman's amendment.
Since the hon. member for Hamilton East spoke, the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) moved a subamendment. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) pointed out that this subamendment was in an entirely different category from the amendment of the right hon. gentleman, and that the right hon. gentleman's amendment, according to the decision of the Chair, which we accepted when it was made, was an alter-

Canadian Flag
native to what we were putting forward, and that the debate on the two could not be separated. Anyone who can read can see that the limiting and restricting subamendment, which the hon. member for Regina City chose to tack on to his leader's amendment, deals with the nature, and only with the nature, of a plebiscite to be held, should the house decide in favour of a plebiscite.
Under our rules we are not supposed to have repetition of debate. We have had a debate on the right hon. gentleman's amendment, and on my right hon. friend's motion. The debate continued up until the hon. member for Regina City chose, as he had a right to do, to restrict that debate by moving a subamendment. It seems to me that my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, would have been derelict in his duty, when the hon. *member for .Kent (Ont.), (Mr. Danforth) commenced to speak about a range of subjects including parades on parliament hill, had he .not drawn attention to the rules of the house with the intention, as the hon. member for Edmonton West well knows, to prevent undue and improper repetition of debate.
The Minister of Justice drew attention to the fact that there was only one question before the house, and that was the subamendment of the hon. gentleman for Regina City, and suggested we should confine our debate to that question until the house is ready to settle it. Once that question is settled we will then go back again to a debate on the right hon. gentleman's amendment, and the ruling of the Chair in regard to that amendment would then apply thereto as long as that debate should continue.
It seems to me, sir, if we are just going to have subamendments moved one after another in order to allow hon. gentlemen to pursue the same general debate, we are totally defeating the purpose of the rules of the house. Therefore it seems to me my hon. friend the Minister of Justice did the only thing which as house leader he should have done, in drawing the attention of the house to that point.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is simply a repetition of the objection raised earlier.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You will have difficulty salving your conscience as of now.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) has stated that an amendment to the motion permitted a general discussion, in consequence of the ruling made some time ago by Mr. Speaker. He is supported by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). He

stated that what was done when the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) moved the subamendment was to limit and restrict the ambit of the amendment. Nothing of the kind was done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Nothing of the kind was done. The subamendment is a means whereby the amendment is amplified and, in this case, an explanation of the actual wording of the plebiscite placed therein. I am not going to deal with the argument in this regard. I do not intend to enter into that debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) will do that.
To follow the suggestion of the Minister of Justice would be contrary to all the decisions made in this house since I have been here, and would be restrictive beyond justice in every way. It would apparently have the purpose in mind of denying the fullest of discussion in this house. There is no question about that.
This is a matter of great seriousness and importance, and if a decision is to be made I suggest Mr. Speaker should be in the chair. It would be most y,nfair to ask you, sir, the incumbent at the moment, to make a decision in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a reflection on the Chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman with his usual garrulousness says this is a reflection on the Chair. It is nothing of the kind. When a matter as important as this is being considered it is unjust to place you, sir, in a position of having to make a decision of such importance.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), coinciding with the return to the house of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who was absent for a week or so, during which period the house carried on very successfully without him, I should remind the house that now the Minister of Transport has nudged the elbow of the Minister of Justice and has urged him to exercise some restraint on the debate that is proceeding. He is trying to do it through a very narrow interpretation of the rules, and has suggested the subamendment, which simply is enlarging the amendment, should have a restriction placed upon it.
Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact we are familiar with the general debates in this house, and when two amendments

cover the same area at the same time the discussion is not restricted in any way, shape or form. The debate ranges over the whole field. The same is true when we are on the budget debate.
In this particular instance I do not see how it is within the competence of the Chair to restrict the debate on the subamendment without making it extraordinarily difficult to carry on a debate in this house. The subamendment, which deals with four suggested proposals to put before the Canadian people, draws into the debate all the reasons for and against these proposals. When I speak in the course of this debate, and on the subamendment of course, I am entitled to say why we are proposing that the present official flag of Canada, the red ensign, be one of the samples put in front of the people. I am entitled to say why some advocate an addition to that red ensign. I am entitled to discuss why we would suggest that the present three-leaf design be put in front of the people; and also why it should not, because you can put both sides of the question. So how in the world can you limit a debate on this particular subject just because the Minister of Justice has the idea that a subamendment should be restrictive in the course of debate here in the house? If debate is restricted, then what are we to talk about? I suppose the usual suggestion will be made-"Let's not have any debate at all; let's have a vote". That is the type of indirect closure which is constantly being attempted to be imposed in this house. I suggest that the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) was on the point of developing his thesis and leading up to the various reasons why the subamendment and the amendment should be supported, and I cannot for the life of me see how it would be possible to effect a restriction.
With regard to what has been said by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) earlier concerning the speech we heard the other night, I would draw the attention of the Chair to page 6801 of Hansard. The hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) apparently spoke on the amendment, but no restriction was imposed upon him at all. At page 6801 appears a learned discourse, which we doubt was prepared by him, on the bitter irony in the current attempt-
-to becloud the issue by the effort of many to convince the Canadian people that any manifestations of nationalism on their part are not only belated but are primitive expressions of a backward people.
How the hon. member was able to relate that to the debate on the flag escaped the atten-
Canadian Flag
tion of the entire house. But he was permitted to go on; the Minister of Justice did not intervene then and say: "This colleague of mine must be restricted because we are speaking to an amendment dealing with a plebiscite concerning the flag". No objection was raised then by the Minister of Justice and I say that he should not raise any objection now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is another of those occasions where on principle I have to take a position which I wish I did not have to take. I deplore the length of this debate. I deplore the suggestion that it may be continued by further subamendments and all that sort of thing. But even so, Mr. Speaker, we do have to have regard for the rules. The rules which were there when we started, which we have observed thus far, must be the rules throughout the debate.
May I draw Your Honour's attention to citation 201 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which was quoted by Mr. Deputy Speaker when he ruled on the amendment to the main motion on June 16 of this year. Citation 201 makes it clear that when there is an amendment before the house the debate may range over the whole subject. Let me read the last few words of citation 201:
In that case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
I am hesitating for a moment while taking cognizance of the fact that Mr. Speaker himself has now taken the chair.
Before Your Honour came to the chair I was pointing out that this is another occasion where on principle I have to argue for something for which I wish I did not have to argue. Despite my feeling that I should like to see this debate brought to a conclusion I am contending that, when an amendment and a subamendment are before the house, it is in order for the debate to consider all of the propositions which are before the house at that time. This happens time and again in this house. I have just read from the latter part of citation 201, which indicates that that is clearly the case when what is before us is an amendment to the main motion. That was the citation on which Mr. Deputy Speaker rested his case when he made the ruling on July 16, 1964, which is to be found at pages 4382 and 4383 of Hansard. On that occasion there was a question raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) relating to the amendment to the main motion.

Canadian Flag
In case some on the government side, such as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill), were to contend that this is a subamendment rather than an amendment, I would draw the attention of Your Honour and the house to citation 202 of Beauchesne, where there are quite a few comments about subamendments. I am not going to take the time of the house by reading all these comments, but in the middle of citation 202(2) is this sentence:
An amendment, when undergoing alteration, is therefore treated throughout as if it were a substantive motion upon which an amendment has been moved.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the present situation is analogous to the situation which we had on June 16. What we have before us is a subamendment to an amendment, and citation 202(2) says that in this instance we have, in effect, a main motion to which there is an amendment. If citation 201 applied on June 16 I suggest it applies now.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there are other ways in which we might find it possible to shorten this debate. I would hope that selfdiscipline might apply and that we might be able to reach some kind of agreement. But as far as the principle and the rules are concerned, I suggest that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Transport are taking the wrong track and I hope they will reconsider their position.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise and challenge an opinion on parliamentary procedure given in this house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is so well known as an authority on this subject. However, it did happen in the course of my law lectures- not too often but sometimes-that a student had drawn my attention to the fact that I might not have been completely accurate in one of my statements on the law, and I trust that here I might be allowed to take the same position today.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) has been allowed, with no objection on my part, to deal both with the substantive question on the resolution and with the matter of the principal amendment. I am not going to repeat what I said previously, but this was precisely in accordance with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that the main amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition was in the nature of an alternative and in the particular case of an alternative the debate takes place on both the original ques-

tion and the amendment concurrently. This is exactly the situation provided for by citation 201 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, which has just been referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and which deals with a special subject, that of an amendment where all the words after the word "that" are deleted and a whole new alternative is proposed. I think that very citation defeats the argument which is proposed to the Chair in that at the bottom of page 168 we read:
In that case-
In that special case.
-the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
The very citation is predicated on the assumption that when you have an amendment to a question debate is restricted to the amendment as being a substantive question. It is only in the case where an amendment is in the nature of an alternative that, as the citation says, the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment. But in the case of a subamendment we read the following in citation 202, paragraphs 1 and 2, which in my respectful opinion disposes completely of the question:
202 (1). To an amendment, when proposed from the Chair, an amendment may be moved; but only two amendments can be proposed at the same time to a question.
(2) As the proposal of an amendment to an amendment originates a fresh subject for consideration, the new question thus created must, to prevent confusion, be disposed of by itself. An amendment, when undergoing alteration, is therefore treated throughout as if it were a substantive motion upon which an amendment has been moved. The original motion, accordingly, is laid aside-
The original motion accordingly is laid aside. -and the amendment becomes for the time a separate question to be dealt with, until its terms are settled.
The position is very simple, Mr. Speaker. As long as the amendment is not one that calls for deleting all the words after "that", as long as the amendment to the amendment is not an alternative, then the amendment becomes the principal question before the house and the subamendment is one that must be dealt with purely and simply. The main resolution is laid aside leaving the way open for a debate which is restricted to the subamendment now being proposed.
When the hon. member for Hamilton East spoke and made the speech to which it is said I raised no objection, I would point out that it will be remembered, as appears in Han-

sard, that he spoke before the amendment to the amendment had been proposed and he therefore spoke under the ruling laid down by Your Honour when Your Honour decided that the main amendment was an alternative that was to be discussed at the same time as the main resolution. I rose on the occasion of the first speech made or attempted to be made in the house since the subamendment was moved for the purpose of objecting and suggesting that debate be narrowed to the subamendment. Therefore I did raise this question at the very first and only appropriate time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat the argument advanced earlier because you were not present at the time. Epitomized, it is in general that presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. What has happened here is that objection has been raised by the Minister of Justice to the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) dealing in general with the flag problem. It has been said that if we were on the amendment the discussion could be wide ranging but that the subamendment delimits the discussion to the matters contained therein. I submit that is a completely untenable position and if followed could only mean the application of the guillotine unjustly and unfairly.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I regret having to rise a second time but I will be very brief. First of all, I would draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice the fact that his argument, if he wishes to be consistent, must apply at the time of supply motions, must apply at the time of the budget debate and must apply at the time of the throne speech debate because subamendments in varying forms are introduced on those occasions. Amendments are introduced, some of which strike out all of the words, and yet debate has always ranged far and wide within the ambit of the main motion and the subamendment.
Even if, and it is a very big "if" the Minister of Justice were right at this time and in effect the main motion is to be laid aside in that there is a sort of progression under citation 202	(2) whereby the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition in effect becomes a substantive motion and the subamendment becomes an amendment, nevertheless the subject matter is so wide within the terms of the flag debate that the hon. member for Danforth-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Kent (Ont.).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Kent (Ont.); I apologize to the hon. member-cannot be said to be trans-20220-438
Canadian Flag
gressing in any way at all in his remarks. I might say to the Minister of Justice that if he is able to persuade Your Honour that the argument he has advanced is a valid one, then I suggest that in future His Honour will have the gravest difficulty in enforcing such a restrictive interpretation of the rules of debate. With the greatest respect Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you it will be impossible to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my pleasant duty to try to render a decision in the face of a great deal of interesting and valuable advice from experienced parliamentarians, but in reaching a conclusion I must base myself on the authorities as I try to understand them. I am much impressed by the arguments made by various members and also by the Minister of Justice. I should like to cut short my decision and come to the point but I think it might be of use at this time to review some of the factors which enter into a decision as to relevancy of debate. It is a fundamental rule that debate must be relevant to the question being considered.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is Your Honour reading from a prepared judgment, or citations in regard to this matter?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I will have to take my own responsibility in this regard.
Stated generally, no matter ought to be raised in debate on a question which would be irrelevant, if moved as an amendment, and an amendment cannot be used for importing arguments which would be irrelevant to the main question.
That comes from May, sixteenth edition, page 421.
A member, while speaking to a question, may not introduce a matter which is irrelevant to that question.
That is May, sixteenth edition, page 451. Again, in May, sixteenth edition, at page 421, it is also stated:
The effect of moving an amendment is, rather, to restrict the field of debate which would otherwise be open on a question. This is not obvious in the case of the type of amendment which proposes to leave out all the words of a question and substitute a different (but of course relevant) proposition. But it is true even in this case. For such an amendment, by concentrating debate on the main question and the amendment as alternative propositions, tends to exclude the consideration of other relevant alternatives.
Now, today we had Beauchesne cited, citation 202, fourth edition, subsection 2, which it might be advisable to read:

Canadian Flag
As the proposal of an amendment to an amendment originates a fresh subject for consideration, the new question thus created must, to prevent confusion, be disposed of by itself. An amendment, when undergoing alteration, is therefore treated throughout as if it were a substantive motion upon which an amendment has been moved. The original motion, accordingly, is laid aside; and the amendment becomes for the time a separate question to be dealt with, until its terms are settled.
Then, in the same citation, paragraph 3 reads as follows:
Since the purpose of a subamendment is to alter the amendment, it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment but it should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment; if it is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.
Now, along the same lines, in May's sixteenth edition, pages 424 and 425, it is stated, and I quote:
Another proceeding may also be resorted to, by which an amendment is intercepted, as it were, before it is offered to the house in its original form, by moving to amend the amendment first proposed. In such cases the questions put by the Speaker deal with the first amendment as if it were a distinct question, and with the second as if it were an ordinary amendment. The original question is, indeed, for a time laid aside; and the amendment becomes, as it were, a substantive question itself. Unless this were done, there would be three points under consideration at once, viz. the question, the proposed amendment and the amendment of that amendment-
Therefore, if the principles concerning the relevancy of debate as set out in the two authorities, Beauchesne and May, which I have just quoted are to be observed, the debate is now to be restricted to the questions which must be submitted in the proposed plebiscite.


John George Diefenbaker: With the greatest of
deference, sir, I find it difficult to understand
how Your Honour is in a position to have a judgment prepared, as was the case recently when the flag resolution was divided. I find this difficult to understand, with the greatest of deference, and the fact that the judgment was prepared in anticipation of the argument being raised causes me to appeal against your direction. This, to me, is quite incomprehensible.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to get into a debate with anyone. There is no mystery about these things. After all, I have been to school and I am able to think for myself on occasion.


John George Diefenbaker: How did Your Honour know in advance what was going to be raised this afternoon?


Mr. Speaker:: I will answer that question immediately. Of course I did not know what was going to be raised this afternoon, but it does not take a genius to come into the house and grasp the situation. It does seem to me quite reasonable, especially in view of the authorities which are set out in citation 202, subsection 2. As I understand the situation, and I can put it in a few words, the original motion was made, the amendment was then made and it gave the alternative method to the original motion. Now we have an amendment of the amendment. I must say I did not find any great difficulty in arriving at a decision. I may be wrong, but at least I am entitled to reach my own decision.
Now I should like to clear up another matter, because there is no mystery about this. In so far as the splitting of the flag resolution is concerned, it was not so simple to reach a conclusion, but I did considerable homework and made up my mind without benefit of advice from anyone except the man upon whom I am entitled to rely, namely the Clerk of the House of Commons.
The house has heard the decision of the Chair from which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has appealed. All those in favor of sustaining the decision of the Chair 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 before the house is an appeal from a ruling of the Chair which is as follows:
A point of order having been raised relative to the subamendment before the house the Chair ruled:
that in accordance with section 2 of citation 202 and also May's sixteenth edition at pages 424 and 425, when a subamendment is proposed the amendment is for the time being treated as a substantive question and in consequence thereof debate must be relative to the question referred therein-
Is it the pleasure of the house to confirm the Speaker's decision?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not the ruling-that the Speaker's decision be maintained-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest of respect, I am rising on a point of order.


Mr. Mcllraith:: You cannot raise it at this time.


An hon. Member:: It seems you have changed the ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If this is an interpretation of Your Honour's ruling, I rise because this decision will be recorded in Votes and Proceedings and may have some very clear implications for the future. I would submit to Your Honour that the purport of your ruling was that the debate would be limited to the points in the subamendment and not the amendment. It is not a question that they should be relevant, because relevancy and limitation are somewhat different.
I should like to have it clearly understood that we have the precise purport of Your Honour's ruling as expressed in this question which is now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly the intention of this ruling is that debate shall be relevant to the subamendment. I think that is quite clear. Perhaps the wording here is a bit clumsy. Perhaps the house will give me two minutes in which to review it with the Clerk.
With the consent of all hon. members, I should like to be very clear on this because I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West that this is an important ruling.
A point of order having been raised to the effect that debate shall be relevant to the subamendment now before the house, the Chair ruled as follows:
That in accordance with section 2 of citation 202 and also of May's sixteenth edition at pages 424 and 425, when a subamendment is proposed the subamendment is for the time being the question before the house and in consequence thereof debate must be relevant to the question covered by the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the decision confirmed.

Canadian Flag


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. Ouellel:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon when I was interrupted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) on a point of order I had been dealing with the march of the flags on parliament hill. Had he been able to curb his impatience for just one more sentence he would have learned that I would have said that the fact that both flags were presented on parliament hill in such numbers was an indication that no one knew an actual desire for a distinctive flag, and in my humble opinion a plebiscite would be necessary to make these flags known. Had he not been so impatient he would have learned that I did intend to stick directly to the terms of the subamendment. But I hasten to point out that in the very terms of the subamendment, which asks-
1.	Are you In favour of the Canadian red ensign?
2.	Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritages of both founding races?
3.	Are you in favour of the three maple leaves design?
4.	Are you in favour of a one maple leaf design?
-I shall show that there has been a mad shambles made of the business of this parliament; that there has been hypocrisy in the claim which is made for the desire for legislation; that this government did deliberately misrepresent the facts to the people regarding a distinctive flag; and that the utter chaos and impasse this parliament is faced with today can only be laid at the doorstep of one man, and one man only-


Some hon. Members:: Diefenbaker.


Harold Warren Danforth: -who in a statement to the radio stated-no, I am speaking of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of this govern-

ment now in power. This man said on the radio in an interview that it would be unfortunate if this question was made an election issue because it would cause an unfortunate division in the country. How naive can a leader of the country be when he believes that this will not be an issue in an election, whether that election is held three months or three years from now. I have never experienced a time when the Canadian population, especially in my area, has been so aroused over an issue as they have other this one.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, are they in favour of the red ensign? They show in the most determined way that they are in favour. They believe that the only way this matter can be solved is by a plebiscite. For in spite of the legal arguments put up by government speakers that there should not be a plebiscite, I am of the opinion that since this issue was deliberately placed into partisan politics by a political party, the only way that we can get it out of politics and have a responsible decision made is by letting the people of the nation decide the matter for themselves.
Are they in favour of the red ensign? We have had claims of all kinds made in this house. Who is to know whether 83 per cent favour the red ensign or 3 per cent favour the red ensign? Who is to know whether 83 per cent favour a distinctive flag or 3 per cent favour a distinctive flag? We have heard claims made in this house, but have we any valid proof of them? I have heard hon. members opposite say that the ethnic groups in this country are solidly behind a new flag. I challenge this statement, because I have spoken, both in my own riding and in other ridings, with members of ethnic groups and I find that this matter is a sore subject with them. Many of these people come from countries where it is said that the disintegration of symbols and the taking away of traditions has been the first step in the downfall of a nation, the first step in a loss of independence. They do not want to see this happen here. They see this as a danger, and when hon. members opposite stand up and tell me that the ethnic groups are in favour of a distinctive flag-this distinctive flag-I challenge them to furnish me with some proof. So far I have not heard or seen any.
Then we hear the claim that the youth of the nation are in favour of a distinctive flag. This is a deliberate misrepresentation. I say to you, sir, that the youth of this country are in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag

when the question is put to them; but the question "Are you in favour of this distinctive Canadian flag?" is never put to them.
I have had only one letter from a student, who told me that gentlemen are coming round to his school and asking: "Are you in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag? If you are, Canada should have one; write to your member of parliament and say that you want to support Mr. Pearson's flag". Mr. Speaker, is this the support that the youth of the country are giving this flag? I say that this is deliberate misrepresentation. The very fact that these people say "a distinctive flag" and not "this distinctive flag" causes me to think that there should be a plebiscite. Let the people decide between the flags. Let the people make up their own minds what they want.
I can appreciate the position the government is in. I can appreciate why the government does not want a plebiscite; it is beginning to realize the awful truth-that perhaps the majority of the people in the country do not want this Pearson flag. What a horrible position this issue has placed the government in. And if I ever had respect for the parliament of Canada it is now, Mr. Speaker, because with a power group in this House of Commons determined to impose this flag on us, and with the realization that perhaps the majority of the people of Canada do not want it, here in parliament a determined opposition has a chance to make itself heard -that is, if we are not placed in the position where we cannot debate, where we are limited in debate, or if we are not held down in the manner we experienced this afternoon.


George James McIlraith: Order.


Harold Warren Danforth: We want to get the facts on the record, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. gentleman is now making a reflection on a ruling by the Chair confirmed by the house.
I suggest he confine himself to the question before the house.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, abide by your ruling in this matter. But the fact still remains that when we want to put facts on Hansard we run into trouble. And why? Are the facts damaging?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Warren Danforth: Is this government afraid of the truth? Can they not stand on their own feet? Can they not take the credit for doing great things for Canada? Are they afraid?
Canadian Flag
Do they think the flag issue is of such magnitude that the government is going to stand or fall on it? Is this what they are afraid of? Is this why we are having violent opposition to this flag?
I will deal with another point: Are you in favour of the three maple leaves flag?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: Hon. members opposite applaud. If the people of this country want or could want the three maple leaf flag, why must the government put on a public relations campaign to sell this flag? We speak of the traditions of the Canadian flag. What tradition can be found on the posterior of a bikini bathing suit on television? What tradition can be found on a blanket of a racehorse? What tradition can be found on the dresses of three college students? Are these the traditions of the Canadian flag we are asked to adopt? Is this the way?
This afternoon we heard in the house about
100,000	bumper stickers. Is this the way we earn a Canadian flag? This is college calisthenics. This is in the same category as the colouring books, the pigeons and all the rest of it. The people of Canada will not accept this.


Miss LaMarsh:: Simmer down.


Harold Warren Danforth: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) says "simmer down". I am glad she made that interjection, Mr. Speaker. In the campaign she came into my riding-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I will change my words. I will say that I wish to thank the minister because if it had not been for her remarks about the Canadian red ensign, remarks which ensured my re-election to the House of Commons, my campaign would have been much more difficult.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member, who has now said I made remarks with respect to the red ensign, to produce proof of same in the house. It is not true that at any time within the county of Kent I made a speech on that particular subject. My remarks were directed more particularly with respect to the voting record of my hon. friend previously and not the flag at that time. I challenge him to produce such evidence before he makes such allegations.

Canadian Flag
- Mr. Danforih: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to get into a personal argument with my hon. friend-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Warren Danforth: -but perhaps she will recall a certain tea party where questions were asked on the red ensign-


Mr.   Balien@Acting Speaker: Order.


Mr. Lamberl:: Well, now, wait a minute.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I am
sure the hon. member would not want to continue too long in this vein and will soon get back to the resolution before us.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that has been raised, surely I have the right to answer a question posed to me by the minister.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a phony point of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. gentleman does have the right to reply. I was only suggesting to him that possibly he would not stay too long on this particular topic and that he would get back to the motion before the house.


Harold Warren Danforth: I do not have to stay too long on it because the candidate was asked a question on the red ensign and he hedged, but the hon. lady did not hedge and that is the reason I am here today.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, I remember no occasion, except for one which was a private matter, when my hon. friend was present at any meeting at which I was present. I assume my hon. friend knows the rules of the house and that when he makes such remarks he makes them on his honour, and challenges remarks which I make on my honour as a member of the house.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to let the matter drop. The minister has made her statement and I have had the opportunity to make my statement. I rely on my statement and if necessary will furnish proof of my statement. Mr. Speaker, because of the fact statements have been made that this is a deliberate concession to the province of Quebec, because statements have been made that the government has sold out, because all these statements cast doubt on this country of ours and could create a division, I sincerely believe that the only way in which these doubts can be resolved is to have a plebiscite based on the subamendment and let the people show whether or not they are

in favour of this new Canadian flag. I am convinced that the people of the province of Quebec are unjustly accused-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: -because all they are doing is asking the government to live up to its campaign promises, and nobody in Canada should be penalized for that. Unless we have a vote of this nature we have no idea whether the majority of people in Quebec, Ontario or any other province are in favour of this flag or the red ensign, or a combination of compromise, or perhaps the one maple leaf flag.
I am very sincere and most serious about this matter because, as I have stated before, the people of Canada are very much concerned about the outcome and about the way the matter has been handled. Too many people are being unjustly accused of acts for which they are not responsible. There are accusations and counter accusations and this problem must be solved. Here in parliament we must find a method of solving it that will work to the advantage and meet the wishes of the majority of the Canadian people.
If the people of Canada are given a chance to make their views known I believe they will not accept one flag of one man, of one particular party. There is too much of the future of Canada at stake. I am absolutely amazed at the number of people in this country who are concerned about the fact that any man in Canada would dare to remove the crosses from the Canadian flag. Why do they want to remove the crosses? People take a very serious view of this. Where are we going in the design of this flag?
May I say I hope a way can be found out of this impasse. Let the people decide. Is the government afraid? Do you not dare to let the people decide?


Guy Favreau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that the decision which was rendered, appealed and confirmed after appeal, is so fresh in our minds that we have no reason to have forgotten it and we should not depart from it. Under that decision the question is not whether or not we should have a plebiscite.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, it is.


Guy Favreau: This is a matter which is theoretically assumed on the basis of the decision. The only question is, granted we should have a plebiscite, are the four questions submitted in the subamendment proper for inclusion in the questionnaire? I submit

respectfully that all discussion of whether we should have a plebiscite instead of a vote by the responsible members of parliament is out of order on the basis of the decision rendered this afternoon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order we heard the ruling this afternoon and Mr. Speaker read from Beauchesne. We do not need to repeat those passages. I have read Beauchesne as well, and the rule says that when there is a motion in front of the house and an amendment and a subamendment the main motion in effect is set to one side, the amendment becomes the substantive motion and the subamendment is in amendment of that. According to the rules the amendment plus the subamendment are the subject for debate-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is what you argued this afternoon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -so the hon. member is within his rights in talking about the value of a plebiscite.


Harold Warren Danforth: This is the second time I have been interrupted. I have tried to abide by the ruling and keep directly within the terms of the subamendment. I would say this. The subamendment asks if you are in favour of the Canadian red ensign or of the three maple leaf design. We have heard hon. members state why they are not in favour of the red ensign. I listened to their deliberations quite respectfully in silence, because I was interested in hearing their views. I have come to the conclusion that when they make their choice they will be doing something that no enemy of Canada has ever been able to do, that is lower the red ensign.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Harold Warren Danforth: I will go one step further, Mr. Speaker. I can say when they make their choice I will be wondering if it is not pure irony that the mad pursuit of this change will settle nothing. The province of Quebec will still fly the flag of Quebec; the province of Ontario will still fly the red ensign; the province of Newfoundland will fly the union jack and British Columbia will fly the union jack. This is an impasse. This is a horrible situation in which Canada finds itself. I hope there will be statesmen in this house who will stand up and say what they believe is best for Canada rather than what is best for a local headline.
Canadian Flag


Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesler-Hants):: At
this stage of the debate, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put forward a few of my views on this question, a question which should be at least of some concern to all Canadians. I am very much aware that it is of vital concern to a great number, and the indications that I have received from my part of the country are to the effect there is little or nothing wrong with our present flag. As a matter of fact, it has been and still is flown very proudly.
It is a matter of regret that this question has come before the country at this time when some elements seem to be in a state of unrest with regard to racial and economic matters. It seems to me that changing our flag at this time, especially in the manner that it is being pursued, will not ease tensions or create unity. Much of our national and historic pride is wrapped up in historic symbols which are now displayed on our flag, the Canadian red ensign.
I cannot believe that the majority of the people of this country wish to destroy the symbols and historic attachment for those symbols for which so many young men and women suffered and gave their all. I do not suggest that these young people went to war only because of a flag. They did so to fulfil their heartfelt obligations to the principles they have inherited and went quite prepared to lay down their lives to defend them. If the youth of this country feel that these historic symbols are no longer important, and I do not believe for one minute that they do -as a matter of fact, indications reaching me are to the contrary-then it must be because our educational system has failed to indoctrinate them with an appreciation of what has gone before. After all, education is an accumulation of what has been revealed in the past.
I was born in this country and under our present flag. During my lifetime, I have experienced some of the difficulties which one would expect to encounter in a growing and changing country. However, never once have I blamed these difficulties on my forebears, or the symbols which they produced. I still have to be convinced that the offspring of any race, whether born in this country or adopting this country and truly understanding the principles for which our symbols stand, would willingly seek to destroy them.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, some compromise is necessary and, as a legislator, I must not close my mind to this possibility. But in the light of the strong feelings evident on the measure which is before this house today, I

Canadian Flag
beg of the Prime Minister and his government that they reconsider this matter. After all, I am sure that if those with strong views had an opportunity to air their views and to hear the strong views of others, no matter how contrary, all concerned would feel much better.
Before this house at the moment is an amendment and subamendment. These two amendments taken together, if accepted, would refer the choice of a flag to the people themselves. Since the people already have a flag, there is no urgency and a plebiscite could be conducted conveniently and without cost, during the next federal election.
In closing, I again appeal to reason, because in this case time is not necessarily of the essence. Should this house vote on this matter without the expression I have referred to and our symbols of the past disappear, I shall deeply mourn their passing. I commend to all people words which are contained in the new brochure of parliament issued on the occasion of Canada's recent birthday. I quote:
Walk proudly through the home of all our freedoms. Feel yourself welcomed. Stand silently amid the brave, proud ghosts of men who forged our nation. Look thoughtfully on word-drenched walls, thick with a hundred years of history. Breathe deeply of an air that is, to you and yours, the very breath of life itself-for being Canadian, your breath of life is freedom. Guard carefully this heritage, that freedom's house may stand.
I emphasize the last line by repeating it:
Guard carefully this heritage, that freedom's house may stand.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I had decided some time ago to take part in this debate and I thought it would be useful to prepare some remarks on the general scope of this subject concerning a national flag and the events that led to the present situation.
However, since there was an attempt to stifle us and since the situation has changed a little, I shall, therefore, change my speech.
Now, I accept the ruling given by the Chair although I do not agree with it at all. The Chair can impose a ruling upon us but not its reasoning. Therefore, I hope the house will not have cause to regret the decision made this afternoon. Let us get back to the subject now before us.

Just in case somebody has some observations in regard to what they feel are the limitations of this afternoon's decision I would suggest that the first paragraph of the

subamendment be read and it will be seen that the subamendment cannot stand by itself. It says:
-that in such a plebiscite among the questions to be placed before the people should be the following-
There is a reference to a prior clause. There is full discussion of a plebiscite "and that such a plebiscite" should contain certain questions.
Notwithstanding the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) there is no doubt whatever in my mind that both the amendment and the subamendment may be discussed, and that was the purport of the ruling, that the discussion should be relevant, and that is what I intend to be and what my colleagues intend to be.
During the course of certain remarks this afternoon it was indicated by some hon. members that they felt there had been sufficient discussion. Hon. members opposite are quite prompt to try to close down debate. We see comments in the press and elsewhere; and across the way they use that word "filibuster," which sounds so nice. But you know, Mr. Speaker, there are those in a democratic regime who believe in freedom of speech. Hon. members opposite profess they believe in freedom of speech as long as they are speaking or they intend to speak, but if anybody else wishes to express an opposite point of view, then of course the discussion is closed. These comments were made this afternoon and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is right to comment upon them. I have said what I want to say about them, but let it be quite clear that I reject them entirely.
I would like to hear the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) and a lot of others get us and speak on this question, and that brings me to the question, why a plebiscite? Do hon. members feel that they themselves are expressing the views of their constituents, that because of certain personal characteristics-


Mr, Favreau:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is my duty, so long as it seems quite clear that the ruling made by the Speaker is not being respected and applied, to rise on a point of order, and I shall so long as I think I should. The decision which was rendered by the Chair this afternoon, and which I repeat was appealed and confirmed on appeal, was to the effect that the discussion is to be limited to the subamendment. The only question before us presently is whether or not, if there should be a plebiscite, it would be in order and appropriate that

the four questions submitted by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) be included in the questionnaire. This is the only point before this house, and what the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has just said is that he intends to depart from the ruling which was rendered this afternoon. I submit respectfully on the face of his very assertion that any part of any speech in the house which does not concern that particular question ought to be ruled out of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, Mr. Speaker, I reject entirely the argument of the Minister of Justice, and if he would read the subamendment he would see the word "plebiscite" is contained in it, and that is what I intend to discuss.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It was the feeling of the Chair that the remarks being made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) at this point were rather of an introductory nature and that he would get to speak to certain aspects of the plebiscite in due course. That is why the Chair did not feel it should intervene at this point. I know the hon. member who has the floor, now knowing the purport of the decision rendered by the house this afternoon, will want to abide by it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think I fully understand the purport of the ruling this afternoon as well as the Minister of Justice. I also think I know my rules a little better than he does.
In so far as the plebiscite is concerned, I maintain that the Minister of Justice himself is not one who can personally say that he can determine for the people of his constituency that there shall be one design, and that one design only shall be the flag of this country. I fail to see how an hon. member, on such a matter so personal to himself and to the people, can say that the flag shall be one design and one design only. That is all that is being presented to us. This, in essence, is the only choice before the members of the house, either to accept the flag or bring about the downfall of the government.
The Minister of Justice may think he has curbed debate as a result of what he did this afternoon, but what he has done is actually to split speeches into two or three, because these points will be brought out.


Guy Favreau: At the proper time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, if the minister was trying to improve, or sort of get the debate
Canadian Flag
moving along, I can assure him from experience that what he has done is merely going to reverse that.


Mr. Robichaud:: Is that a threat?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) asks, is that a threat. He used to sit over on this side and we could hear him quack quacking from the top of the fence. That is what he is doing now. He is not even in his seat. Let us not hear from the Minister of Fisheries.
In so far as what should appear in a plebiscite, the first question we propose is, are the people of Canada in favour of the red ensign? That is a very simple question. It is not like some of the polls that were taken during the course of the last few months which asked, "Are you in favour of a red ensign as against a distinctive national flag?" They did not say what was a distinctive national flag. It was the red ensign against the field. That is one question we are asking, and from the mail I have received I can assure hon. members that there are great numbers who insist upon the red ensign. They have the right to do so, the same way as other people have the right to insist on another design.
I do not wish to force a design on any person. This is something which is personal, something which derives from family antecedents, the part of the country in which one was brought up, or in which one now lives, or perhaps because of military experience. I myself was profoundly impressed by the red ensign this summer while with the maple leaf tour in June from Caen to Nijmegen. I attended the ceremonies at the Vimy memorial and on that particular day, and in that particular setting, with the Canadian red ensign flying across the Vimy memorial, the effect was most moving. It was a proud flag, joined there with what is possibly the proudest memorial to the men of this country who gave their lives for freedom. It was a symbol of Canada. That is how it struck me on that occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The red ensign was flying, also, at the cemeteries in Normandy, in the Pas de Calais area, at Ypres-all historic names-as well as at the cemetery where my own comrades lie. Then again, it was flying at Canada square in Dieppe and at the Dieppe cemetery.
This is how it affects some people. I will admit there are others who do not share these sentiments. My mail indicates a di-

Canadian Flag
vergence of opinion. It is predominantly in favour of the red ensign, though, as has been shown by other polls. But I come to the conclusion, and I have tried to be as fair as I can, that the division within the country is very close as between the red ensign and a

I repeat the word "a"-distinctive national flag. Thus, if the three maple leaf design which is now proposed by the government were to have support of only 55 per cent of the people of the country, or 51 per cent, does this mean it is likely to command the support and affection and the loyalty of the rest of the people of Canada? This is what bothers me with regard to the division which has been indicated during this debate.
I have been talking about the red ensign. The next suggestion is a modified form of red ensign showing the British connection by the union jack and the French partnership in this country by the symbol of the fleur de lis. This may be one form to be considered. There are others which are proposed. We have seen a great number of designs combining the union jack with the fleur-de-lis on a red background. Let it be known that the red background gives a certain dignity and, shall we say, posture to a flag which is not apparent in many other designs.
The third design mentioned is that put forward by the government, the three maple leaf design. This whole flag business has been introduced at this time in order to give the country what some people have sought, namely a distinctive national flag. But we have to look at the word "distinctive". What does it mean? I looked it up in Webster's dictionary. The definition given is "Distinguishing from others; characteristic". Take the first meaning-"distinguishing from others". Is it suggested that the red ensign is not distinguishable from others? I have here a chart of the flags of 110 nations, members of the United Nations in December, 1962. If we look at this chart from the point of view of whether the red ensign is distinguishable from others, let me say there is not one flag that approaches it. This cannot be said for many other of the flags which appear on this chart. I could show hon. members many instances where there are almost identical flags with colours reversed or a slight change in design. Here they are-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I bring to the attention of the hon. member that it is not customary in this house to use documents, or exhibits, if I may use that term, of the type the hon. member is now using. He showed this exhibit and the Chair said noth-

ing. But I know he would not wish to use it extensively. The hon. member might refer to a recent ruling of Mr. Speaker when flags were exhibited in the house. At that time Mr. Speaker ruled that they should not be so exhibited. I feel it would be very bad practice if members were to bring into the house for the purpose of supporting their arguments exhibits of the type the hon. member is now using in his speech.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I realize certain difficulties which might arise if flags were spread all over desks, as was done on the occasion of the recent ruling, but I think a comparison between bananas and oranges is being made here. On the other hand, I am faced with a printing problem. I could ask that this chart be appended as an appendix to Hansard but the colours would not come out and therefore I could not make my point.
I have a list of the similarities here but I shall not go into the details. May I simply indicate that many of these flags are similar in appearance. And I am talking now about national flags; I am not talking about merchant marine flags or secondary flags where there might well be similarities. After all, because of the limitations imposed by the designs themselves, there are bound to be some similarities.
Let us consider the other part of the definition-"characteristic". Take the three maple leaf design. First of all, I am told on good authority that this is a botanical impossibility. Let us consider whether this design is characteristic of all Canada. I am only repeating an argument which is well known, but-


Mr. Malheson:: Mr. Speaker-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh well, I know the hon. gentleman is the authority who put them together. May I suggest that the maple leaf is not characteristic of Canada as a whole. It is only characteristic to a limited region of the country. I think one could make as good an argument that because the buffalo once roamed in millions and millions on the western prairies, yet did not exist in eastern Canada, the buffalo is as characteristic to Canada as a whole as the maple leaf is to Canada as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, there is some difficulty in arguing that the maple leaf is characteristic to Canada as a whole.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Why did the Meighen government recommend that the maple leaf emblem be adopted?


An hon. Member:: You have already had the opportunity of making a speech.


Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member why the Meighen government recommended to His Majesty, King George V, that the maple flag-three leaves on one stem-should be the emblem of Canada?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I feel there is some difficulty in associating some of these representations with any particular party or government. If one looks back to the antecedents of the red ensign one will find them in the time of Sir John A. Macdonald, and in various forms until 1904 when it was taken down by a minister in the Laurier administration. The hon. member has referred to a particular administration and I will mention another. The red ensign was taken down and replaced by the union jack during the Laurier administration.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss the aesthetics of the maple leaf design. I should like now to deal with the fourth alternative. Perhaps I should not refer to it as an alternative because my hon. friend, shall we say a linguistic purist, suggests that the four choices should not be considered as alternatives, and I concede him that point. In any event, I find the fourth choice, the single maple leaf design, preferable to the three leaf design. Unfortunately the three leaf design has been supported by what I consider to be a very artificial argument, that is, that one leaf represents the Anglo-Saxon population.


John Ross Matheson: Nonsense.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: One leaf of the three leaf design represents the Anglo-Saxon side, one leaf represents the French side and the third leaf represents the other people of Canada.


John Ross Matheson: Nonsense.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was your own Postmaster General who used that argument.


John Ross Matheson: He was wrong.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You say the minister was wrong, and I agree with you. This argument is a most artificial and unsupportable one, yet is the one that has been trotted out on occasion by the government to buttress this choice.


John Ross Matheson: Oh, no.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the reasons I have given, make it possible for me to believe a far better and more acceptable design is that of the single maple leaf which represents unity of Canada. I would think far bet-
Canadian Flag
ter of something which represents oneness or unity in Canada than of something which will permanently imprint a division in the minds of the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: It would only do so in your mind.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, someone suggests it would only imprint this division in my mind, but I suggest that was the reaction to the argument used by a government spokesman in respect of the choice of this symbol.
I think the official opposition has been eminently fair in putting forward these four choices. We have not rejected the choice of the government. We feel it should be put forward to the people as one of the four choices. The opposition has accepted as a choice a design with one maple leaf, which seems to have had its most enthusiastic sponsorship from hon. members to my immediate left. We have also accepted the red ensign as a choice. We have accepted also a modified form of the red ensign. We have done so in order to give the people of this country a chance to have some features included which they would like, and eliminate others which they feel should not be included. I think the opposition has been eminently fair in regard to the four choices.
I find myself, representing a large and populous riding, in a great dilemma in so far as the choice of a flag is concerned. Mr. Speaker, I conducted a poll in which I asked the constituents of my riding the following questions: Are you in favour of the proposed maple leaf flag? Are you in favour of the red ensign? Are you in favour of some other distinctive national flag? Those questions reasonably approximate the questions to be put to the people on this plebiscite. I chose the individuals to whom I wrote in this regard in an attempt to have a good cross section of the constituents from the standpoint of age, income level, ethnic origin, religion, urban and rural, yet answers were quite clear. In so far as the question in respect of a distinctive flag other than the red ensign, of approximately 100 people answering, 48 were against and 38 were in favour. In so far as the question regarding the red ensign, 58 were in favour and 32 were against. Approximately 60 people were against the adoption of a maple leaf design and 25 were in favour.
I also asked whether this whole question in respect of a distinctive Canadian flag would be divisive or promote national unity. Of ap-

Canadian Flag
proximately 100, 75 thought it would be divisive and 25 thought it would promote national unity. The people contacted were evenly split as to whether a referendum should be held or not.
Mr. Speaker, I think the poll I conducted was very fair. I think the method I used was more conducive to an accurate result than asking the people the one question: Are you in favour of the red ensign as against a distinctive national flag? A national poll has indicated that more people are in favour of the red ensign than of an unknown distinctive national flag.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the many other points I wish to speak on should be reserved for another occasion. I should like to say this, Mr. Speaker. We have given a fair choice to the people of Canada. We have been fair from a political point of view. The three maple leaf design has been politically motivated, or at least it was bom under partisan political conditions. We have accepted the N.D.P. suggestion as one choice, because we do not want to make a partisan political proposal in respect of a flag. To do so would be entirely wrong. I do not believe a national flag of Canada should be born under partisan political pressures; yet this is the method proposed to us and the method by which it is to be adopted. There was no choice offered. I should say there was a choice: Take it or leave it.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the people of Canada should be asked to adopt a flag on a take it or leave it basis, and it is for that reason I ask hon. members to support the subamendment.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That suggestion is much better than any made by the hon. member who sits there muttering in his beard.


Vincent Drouin: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly.


Vincent Drouin: Could the hon. member tell us what would be his views on the flag issue if he had to reply to the four questions suggested by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) in a referendum? What would be his opinion then?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: At present, as representative of my constituents, I fully support the red ensign.


John Ross Matheson: Would the hon. member permit a question. He referred during the course of his remarks to a number of historic battles which occurred in the first world war. He also referred to his own comrades, and we know he is a veteran of the Dieppe raid. Did I understand him to suggest that we ever saw action under the Canadian red ensign before June 1944?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I certainly did not. I said that I saw the sites of those battles in 1964, with the red ensign there representing Canada. There was never any suggestion that it was otherwise. But I certainly never made any pretence that I rode into battle under the red ensign. Whoever does so is going to draw fire right away. It would be ludicrous. After all, we are not back in the fourteenth century.
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-
Lennox): Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the privilege to rise in this chamber at this time to make my contribution to this debate. Someone has said that no question since that old contentious question years ago out west- the execution of Louis Riel, who incidentally would not have been executed had he not previously caused Thomas Scott to be hanged-has been more controversial in this divided country than the question of this Canadian flag. I am sure you would agree that that is true. I am not taking a pessimistic view of the matter, because I think in the end good thinking and the proper use of compromise in the interests of all the people concerned will prevail, and that we will work out a solution to this contentious question.
Today this modern question of the flag is born of the same reasons that that old question out west was born. The former controversy, now far back in antiquity, was a needless development. It was born of bad politics, of hatred, of one man's lust for power and a certain amount of misunderstanding. A lot of those things apply today in this debate. Some men become so imbued with a lust for power that they are determined to ride roughshod over the sentiments, civil rights, institutions and emblems of God fearing citizens. Is it any wonder that this party, the Queen's loyal opposition, is taking an active part in this debate when these dangers are present? Riding roughshod-that is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is trying to do, and will do, if he can get away with it. His politics- those of the Prime Minister and his party- are bad at the present time, Mr. Speaker. He

and his party as well as all other parties promised the people a distinctive Canadian flag.
At this point I want to cite the bad politics, the shiftiness, the deception finally and actually implied in this promise. The people of Canada-and X mean the majority of the people of Canada-calmly agreeing in the last election campaign to this, did not expect the resulting so-called distinctive flag to be one from which both the union jack and the fleur-de-lis would be absent. I am sure that every hon. member here will agree that that was not the general expectation of the people of this country. They expected to see those two old and honoured emblems, the union jack and the fleur-de-lis, on the promised so-called distinctive flag. But what a political play hon. members opposite have made of that word "distinctive", Mr. Speaker. Did Your Honour-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate very much to interrupt the hon. member. His speech is, of course, very interesting but before he goes on I feel I should read to him for his guidance the ruling of Mr. Speaker, which was sustained by the house this afternoon; I am sure the hon. member would want to limit his remarks in the light of the decision. His decision is in these words:
That in accordance with section 2 of citation 202 and also May's sixteenth edition at pages 424 and 425, when a subamendment is proposed the subamendment is for the time being the question before the house and in consequence thereof debate must be relevant to the question covered by the subamendment.
I realize that the hon. member has to start somewhere and that to begin with his remarks have to be general. However, I would suggest that eventually he should come to the point of the question before the house.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, My remarks though general at the start, are not at the present time general. With all due respect and courtesy to you the paragraph I am citing now from my notes applies to paragraph 2 of the subamendment, which reads:
Are your in favour of the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritages of both founding races?
That is the subject about which I am talking at the present time. I am sure that simplifies that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not wish to argue -indeed I cannot-with the hon. member, but surely his argument cannot be that because there is a reference in the subamendment to the Canadian red ensign he can say
Canadian Flag
anything about the Canadian red ensign. The question before the house is, what should be contained in the proposed plebiscite; whether the plebiscite proposed should include certain specific questions. My understanding of the ruling made by the house this afternoon is to the effect I have just stated. In any event I have read the decision which was made. I am not trying to make a general ruling, but if there is any difficulty I would be pleased at that time to give my opinion whether or not the hon. member is in order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect to Your Honour, if you were listening to my words you would see that I am in order. Did Your Honour or any other member of this house ever anticipate, previous to our being informed of the Prime Minister's private choice of the trifoliate twig on a bedsheet as the Canadian flag, that it would be an emblem devoid of the emblems of the two great peoples who founded and developed this country? This relates to the second paragraph of the subamendment which asks:
Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritages of both founding races?
If you can make anything else out of that, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, it is beyond all comprehension of any parliamentary procedure ever invented by British institutions and handed down to us today.


Mr. Coie (Longueuil):: Don't stop; read on.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: You will get your chance to make your speech. It is too bad the hon. member does not take part in this debate. I think the answer to the question I just asked is no. What is it, Mr. Speaker, that motivates this policy? I think I can tell you. In his hunger for political histrionics and mastery of the stage, and for a sweep of 75 possible seats in Quebec, he would sell the birthright and the sacred symbols of the other remaining nine provinces. Hon. members will all remember Cowper, the famous English poet of the 18th century. I think his words apply this evening. He said:
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 state of affairs this country is going through at the present time. I urge my colleagues from Quebec, and I hope they are here in goodly numbers, not to be seduced by this gesture on the part of the Prime Minister and his administration, for there will be a day of

Canadian Flag
payment if you are. There will be a future
price you will have to pay if you dance to his fiddle.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In spite of the objections raised by the hon. member for Prince Edwara-Lennox a moment ago to the call to order from the Chair, I feel that the hon. member is completely irrelevant at the moment and I would advise and entreat him to keep in mind the decision of the house, not necessarily the decision of the Chair, which was reached by a vote this afternoon. The decision of the house is that the question before us now is the subamendment and certainly I cannot see how the hon. member can relate the points he is now making to the subamendment. They might be very relevant to the main question or might even be relevant to some extent to the amendment, but quite sincerely I do not think they are relevant to the amendment.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the point of order. The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City last Thursday is in these words:
-and that tn such a plebiscite among the questions to be placed before the people should be the following-
Then four possibilities of choice by the people are listed including the red ensign, the red ensign modified, the three maple leaves flag and the one maple leaf flag. Surely you are not saying, Mr. Speaker, that anyone speaking on the subamendment cannot discuss the advantages of voting for any one of these flags and compare the method of a plebiscite on four possibilities with the method suggested by the Prime Minister. If you were to so rule then surely there would be no point in a member saying he was in favour of the subamendment, and saying nothing else. I think a member should be able to compare the plebiscite method with the method proposed by the government and to point out the advantages with regard to the choice of flags. Surely if an hon. member prefers one of them he can, with all due respect, give us his opinion. Surely he is not going to be deprived of the opportunity of voicing his opinion as to which flag he prefers among the four listed.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I think it is rather useless for the Chair to try to argue with every member who disagrees with a ruling made by the house, but to my mind the question before the house now is the propriety of putting certain specific questions in a plebiscite. To my mind that is obvious and I would suggest that as much as possible

the hon. member deal with that matter. As an example I would cite the speech made by the hon. member for Edmonton West which to mind appeared to be relevant and I considered it to be relevant because it dealt with these four specific points. If the hon. member will frame his speech within those confines I am sure he will have no difficulty with the Chair.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Clause 2 of the subamendment is in these words: .
Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritages of both founding races?
We have been discussing the lack of symbols on the suggested new flag, such as we expected would show the heritages of the two founding races. I exhort my hon. friends on the back rows of the Liberal benches, who by supporting this implacable flag policy of their leader remind me of a herd of trained seals on an ice floe that is rapidly breaking up, that they had better leave while they can.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Because of their actions their ice floe is breaking up. It is melting away and it is soon going to become uninhabitable in the gulf stream of truth. I appeal to them, Mr. Speaker, because of the untenable national position of their party as a result of the new low they have reached in the opinion of the majority of the people of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I swing back to clause 1, "are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign". What a play they have made on the word "distinctive". According to the dictionary "distinctive" means "marking a difference or separation". That is an ominous explanation, for by playing on the word "distinctive", which has been endlessly repeated by the Liberal party for the past year or so, they have certainly marked out a separation in this country. That honoured flag, the Canadian red ensign, is more than distinctive. It might better be termed "distinguished". It marks out no difference or separation in this country but nobly represents the symbols, aspirations and personal patriotism of every citizen of Canada.
What are the attributes of this distinguished flag? What are the synonyms of "distinguished"? Prominent, conspicuous, noted, glorious, illustrious and famous. Hon. mem-

bers will agree that right here on the hill the appreciative lenses of thousands of cameras are pointed every day to capture the glory of this flag high up on the peace tower.
I swing to clause 3 of the subamendment, "Are you in favour of the three maple leaves design"?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: This reminds me of a comparison that took place right out on the east lawn. On the day that the Prime Minister authorized the trial flying of his flag, the three maple leaves design, on a special pole in front of the Senate, a friend of mine, Mr. Brian Blackstock of Toronto, a schoolteacher, was showing two university professors from Texas the sights of parliament hill. They inquired as to what the meaning was of this flag flying on a pole while at the same time the Canadian red ensign was flying on the peace tower. Their comment was: Surely you are not going to adopt this for your country's flag in preference to the beautiful banner flying from above. They said that to them the new flag looked like the flag of one of the emerging nations of Africa or resembled a flag of commerce, advertising a product for sale.


An hon. Member:: Soap flakes.


An hon. Member:: Imperial oil.


An hon. Member:: Molson's ale.


An hon. Member:: Canada Packers.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The youth of Canada, many of whom know the meaning of the component features of the red ensign, are asking the government and parliament especially to maintain this distinguished flag as the flag of our country. There are thousands of our people, especially those who in their youth have been boy scouts, girl guides or wolf cubs, who have learned the meaning of this flag and its features. They have learned to honour and respect this flag. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, who the base, arch conspirator would be on the right hand side of this chamber over which you preside who in years past has told the youth of this country and indicated to them by the example of action and use, "This is your country's flag flying over this hill and the public buildings across the country, the Canadian ensign", but who now says "This is not your country's flag; I have another one which I ask you to honour from now on". This is just like taking good parents away from a child, substituting another set of parents, and asking the child immediately to
Canadian Flag
love and honour the new parents while the real ones still exist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Hon. members opposite may laugh, but I think it is a good comparison. The youth of this country say, do not give us a meaningless flag; do not give us this pale creation which is one man's choice.
This is the reason we need a plebiscite.


Yvon Dupuis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
You have already called to order several times the hon. member who has the floor. Now this afternoon, a question was put to the house and the house asked that we restrict our discussion to the subamendment now before us. So I wonder how many times the Chair will have to repeat the same thing. The comments being made by the hon. member who has the floor are completely irrelevant. Therefore, I feel you should ask the hon. member to stick to the subamendment.


Mr. Smallwood:: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe the hon. member has any right to get up and start lecturing our members. He has no point of order at all.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to bring to your attention at this time the discrimination shown by the Chair against members on this side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: In support of my statement I can quote no better authority than your ruling, Mr. Speaker, of May 4. I quote from Hansard, page 2892:
My understanding of the practice in these debates is to consider both the amendment and the subamendment at the same time and not to be too restrictive so as to eliminate all discussion which might not be strictly relevant to the subamendment.
I think we should take into account that in order to be acceptable the subamendment must relate in some way to the main amendment. This would indicate that remarks of the type now being made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano are relevant.
These two paragraphs I have just quoted from your remarks indicate that the Liberal members of this house are enjoying privileges which are tonight being denied the members on this side of the house. I do bring before you, sir, a very sound question of privilege.

Canadian Flag


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize that the decision to which the hon. member refers was actually rendered by the Chair. I remind him also that the decision with which the Chair now has to contend is a decision of the house itself. The Chair was quoting, for the benefit of hon. members who had the floor from time to time, the decision reached by the house this afternoon.
In so far as discrimination is concerned, it seems to me that what the hon. member has quoted is proof of just the opposite. The decision which was reached at the time was really in favour of the hon. members who were speaking from the left of Mr. Speaker and was to allow them a little bit of latitude. I feel that at the moment the hon. member is entitled to some latitude. The reason I have interrupted from time to time was simply to quote the decision of the house for the guidance of all hon. members on both sides of the house.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why then was the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) permitted to rise, and without recognition by the Chair, interrupt the hon. member in his remarks?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister without Portfolio rose on a point of order and the hon. member who had the floor yielded the floor by sitting down. The minister had a right to raise a point of order, just as the hon. member for Cape Breton South had a right to raise a point of order. I think we would make better progress and it would be to the advantage of all concerned if we allowed the hon. member to continue his remarks.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You keep quiet and listen over there; perhaps you will learn something.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I was talking about the request of the youth of this country to give them a live flag, a flag that could grow with the country. They say, do not give us a dead flag. This trifoliate flag cannot be added to. The three maple leaves on the white background are confined by the two blue bands at the end. This flag cannot grow. Whatever heraldic balance it possesses, that is the way it must stay down through the ages. We need a flag like the red ensign that has evolved, grown and developed with the country and whose make-up can accommodate further growth. The Northwest Territories and the Yukon will soon be provinces, so some day these provinces will need symbols on our flag.

Paragraph 3, Mr. Speaker, asks, are you in favour of the three maple leaf design? In looking over this scheme of collusion between the government and certain provincial components of the country, I note that hon. members on the government side have been most anxious to get the Prime Minister's flag through as quietly as possible. They reveal themselves by their own, individual actions. Orders have been given to their back benches: Do not debate the question; let the opposition founder against our rocks of silence; when the opposition carries on the debate long enough, then we will accuse them of obstruction. For some time now Liberal strategy has urged members to keep quiet regarding the flag, and this has been illustrated tonight.
Paragraph 2 of the subamendment asks, are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign and changes made thereon to show the main heritage of the founding races? We are urged not to say anything to hurt the feelings of Quebec because of the fear of dividing the country. Now, Mr. Speaker, how deceptively naive can you get? How deceptively naive are the occupants of the government benches? How gullible do they think we are? How gullible do they think the rest of the country is? There is a cause for every effect and this debate, no matter how long it may take, is the effect of a cause. The cause is the bad performance, the deceptive politics of this government. The cause has already divided the country as it has never been divided hitherto and the scars will take many years to heal.
Referring to paragraph 3 again, Mr. Speaker, and the three maple leaf design, I may say this:
Canada is often portrayed as a muscular Jack Canuck in high boots, tight breeches, khaki shirt open at the chest, and felt hat, a doughty, durable, indestructible character, the twentieth century epitome of the pioneer, and the indomitable spirit that built this country under the surveillance of law and the union jack and red ensign. But this portrayal is not the true Canada. Canada is fragile, as the Prime Minister has lately learned. Canada is a 4,000 mile assembly of many races, many regional interests, many creeds, each often on a different curriculum, but of course all studying at the same school of life, Canada, and of many varied economies, but all working together. That is what we should be doing here.
The Liberal party has hurt Jack Canuck and the picture of Jack as I have just given

it. It has hurt this country and now, by this ill founded flag measure the Liberal government proposes to inflict more wounds on Canada, wounds that may never heal. I say to the Prime Minister, "Stay your knife, let the noble banner that with faith, justice, patience and charity helped build this country continue to wave over us and we will go on to greater unity and greater accomplishments." Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the end we can work out something that will suit all the people of this country.
I have mentioned the tactics of the government and the lack of debate from the government benches. If this trifoliate white sheet is any good, if it is worthy of succession as Canada's flag, one would assume it was worthy of support on the positive side of this debate. But no, it is a conspicuous fact that by the silence of most of the Liberal party-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that at this point he is beyond the limitations of the debate when he discusses whether there have been contributions or not from another part of the house.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I was just saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite evident this trifoliate flag gets little support from members on the Liberal benches.


Mr. Sharp:: Let parliament decide.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The Toronto Telegram of Thursday, May 21, portrays the Canadian red ensign, our flag, trampled and torn, its flag staff shattered, lying on the muddy field of politics. It has no business there. The Prime Minister and his administration which put it there have much to answer for and will certainly pay for their actions when the people of this country are given the opportunity of judging their acts.
Why is it that more Ontario Liberals do not take part in this debate? I have here a clipping from the Campbellford Herald of Wednesday, July 29, showing a survey which reveals Northumberland county wants the ensign. The Cobourg Sentinel-Star conducted a survey and makes this comment:
Mr. Foster Russell, editor of the Cobourg Sentinel-Star, in a recent editorial chided Dr. Jewett, member of parliament, for her stand on the Pearson flag issue, saying that she did not represent the wishes of her constituency in her stand for the discard of the red ensign.
To prove his point, he conducted, at his own expense, a survey of the county, making a spot check of 662 citizens in a house to house canvass-
Canadian Flag


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I think I have to try again to make the argument I made to the hon. member a moment ago, that although this might be relevant in another part of the debate it seems to me it is not relevant to the specific question before us now.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this clipping is relevant to clause 1, clause 3 and clause 4 of the subamendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I would ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair. It is the Chair's opinion that this article may be of great interest and may be relevant on some other occasion, but I believe that though it does relate in some way to either clause 1, clause 3 or clause 4 of the subamendment, that is not the point before the house. The question before the house is that the amendment be amended by adding thereto certain words, and the question is whether these words should be added to it or not; and I would ask the hon. member's co-operation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, earlier Your Honour suggested that members might indicate the propriety-that was your word- of listing the four subjects for the plebiscite. The hon. member who now has the floor is indicating that there is a need to ask the question about the red ensign, because of the desire of the people to express their wishes on that. I took that to be the substance of the article he was reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The argument made by the hon. member is interesting but I still feel that it is a little far fetched for the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox to claim that what he is reading now is relevant to the subamendment before the house. I do not think it is necessary for me to read again the question before the house or the authorities cited by the Speaker this afternoon, but perhaps I might take one minute to refer to the main citation, No. 202(2) in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which states:
As the proposal of an amendment to an amendment originates a fresh subject for consideration, the new question thus created must, to prevent confusion, be disposed of by itself. An amendment, when undergoing alteration, is therefore treated throughout as if it were a substantive motion upon which an amendment has been moved. The original motion, accordingly, is laid aside; and the amendment becomes for the time a separate question to be dealt with, until its terms are settled.
I have read the question which was put by Mr. Speaker this afternoon and on which there was a vote of the house. I think that the argument the hon. member is now making

Canadian Flag
is not relevant to the question before the house.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: In short, Mr. Speaker, the people of Northumberland, like the people of all our districts in that part of Ontario, want their wishes known in this chamber. The results of the survey were: ensign; 300; union jack 92; maple leaf 132, other flag 45, no opinion 57, total 626, which is almost five to one against the three leaf Pearson flag.
I am also convinced that this proposed new flag design is unacceptable to the people of Leeds, and I deplore the ill founded policy of nothingness, and nihilism, advocated by the hon. member for that riding. Of course, he being the architect and author of this three leaf flag, this heraldic hallucination-


Neil Alexander Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: -which he and the Prime Minister will substitute-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Leeds has the floor on a question of privilege.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have been gratuitously involved in this discussion and I think the hon. member, if he considers this matter with any honesty at all, appreciates there is no Pearson design, there is no Matheson design; there is simply the advice taken on the grant that was accepted by the former Conservative government and which is now the heraldic law of this nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) was rising on a question of privilege. I doubt whether it was a question of privilege. The hon. member was making an argument, and I would point out that he has a right to rise later on in the debate to explain what he may have said in order to clear up what might have been a misrepresentation. But I do not think there is a question of privilege here and I would ask the speaker who has the floor to continue his remarks.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order with regard to an expression used by the hon. member for Leeds. He implied that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack) was not speaking with honesty and I would ask the hon. member for Leeds to withdraw that imputation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Certainly no hon. member can impute dishonesty to another member, and I am sure the hon. member for Leeds would wish to explain to the house

that the words he used went beyond his thoughts and that he did not intend to impute dishonesty to the hon. member.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Certainly I hasten to withdraw anything which would impute any suggestion of dishonesty to an hon. member who is also my friend and neighbour in Ontario. But I do think in fairness to myself I should be allowed to put this point before the house-that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I said a moment ago, the hon. member will have an opportunity to speak again in the course of this debate. If he feels there has been some misunderstanding or misinterpretation, he may speak again by way of explanation. He has now withdrawn any imputation which may have been contained in or inferred from his remarks and I suggest that the hon. member who now has the floor be allowed to continue his speech.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was discussing this heraldic hallucination, this piece of nothing which the hon. member for Leeds and the Prime Minister have substituted for something. That is all. I can agree that nihilism, or nothingness, is his doctrine and his forte. "Do away with everything we have found to be good" he says "and in its place let us have nothing". By the same Mathesonian token this means we should go further and formulate and adopt a new language having no connection with either French or English and no trace of tradition or old values. Hooray for the nihilistic new Liberal policy-nothing.


An hon. Member:: That will suit the N.D.P.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I should like to point out to the government if they would avoid capsizing on the shoals of fact, that Canada is only as strong, as united, as unanimous and as happy as are the several provinces. One of the provinces namely Manitoba, in disagreement with the position taken by the government regarding the flag has already named the red ensign as its provincial flag. Seven other provinces are flying the red ensign from all their public buildings and their citizens fly it from the verandahs and rooftops as never before. Newfoundland, as is its ancient and honourable usage and custom flies that great and respected banner, the union jack. What is the reason? They have finally come to life. They have realized they are in danger of losing this emblem which is so dear to

them and which has meant so much to their fathers and mothers down through the years.
I respectfully suggest to the government that the value of the opinions of the premiers of the provinces be recognized in deciding this vital national question. The government need have no fear of politics being a factor in present circumstances when four of the provincial governments are Liberal, four are Conservative and two are Social Credit-a very fair balance sheet which I think would yield a lot of wisdom. I suggest this should be done even if it should be decided to take a referendum. Let us first have the advice of these men. They could help select a flag which would take nothing away from the recognition of either of the founding peoples.
I have here an article from the Ottawa Journal of Wednesday June 17, 1964. It states:
The Prime Minister appeals for everyone to accept the decision of parliament, whatever it is. But there will be more chance of general acceptance if the flag of Canada is selected with reflection and careful choice. Democracy demands that dissenting voices be heard before the will of the majority prevails-
This house tonight does not seem to be too willing to grant this democratic privilege.
-perhaps including the method suggested in these columns on June 3-a postponement of decision long enough to allow a meeting of premiers and party leaders to give their views on the flag. Our thought was that even should such a conference fail to attain unanimity it would enable the federal government to demonstrate clearly it had sought unanimity.
I am in favour of the amendment and of the subamendment, particularly of the paragraph which asks: "Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign?"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member. I may say his time expired some five minutes ago but he was given this additional time in view of interruptions and points of order which were made while he was speaking. Unless he has the unanimous consent of the house to continue his remarks-


An hon. Member:: We have suffered enough.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret the hon. member cannot continue without unanimous consent and there definitely is not that.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Sometimes I wonder, with all due respect, whether the House of Commons is here to decide the affairs of this nation or whether we are simply here on a hair-splitting expedition. This man Beauchesne is a very learned gentleman, but I do not think his book was ever written in order to throttle debates in this house. I do
Canadian Flag
not see how we can discuss the subamendment and the amendment unless we talk about the substance of what we are here to talk about, that is, the flag.
The people of Canada want to know-and this is what they ask me in almost every letter I get-what we are doing about the flag. This is a subject which usually is too hot to handle. Politicians shy away from the subject as a rule. They are not shying away from it tonight. You can see they are not. We intend to attack this problem until we know what we are fighting about. So, with permission of the house I want to tell hon. members what this flag means to me. I cannot argue in a vacuum. I cannot tell others what it means to them. But I have a right to say what it means to me and I know I speak for at least a million Canadians when I do so. I do not wish to parade my war service but after all I cannot deny my origins. I cannot deny that I am of British origin. When I am speaking about a flag would you ask me to say that I am willing to give away a tradition of my race? The British people are a proud race.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is right we are.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: One of the reasons we are a proud race is that we face every difficulty that comes before us in a chamber such as this with free discussion, with kindness and with patience, and we make positive contributions. It is very difficult to make a positive contribution when emotions are aroused and we lose our tempers and call each other names. This institution was not based on that kind of performance and it has stood for
2,000	years.
One of the things this flag has stood for, Mr. Speaker, is this institution. We are allowed to take part in a free discussion in this chamber, and I say to you that if you allow this freedom of discussion to be stopped by closure, by booing and catcalling, or by calling each other names, this institution may well become a great Stonehenge-a circle of silent stones, and freedom will be wept for at that grave.
I have visited Stonehenge on the island of England. Perhaps Stonehenge is a circle of silent stones now because freedom died in Britain 3,000 years ago and was reborn under the Christian cross. I do not know whether people believe anything any more, or whether any of us believe anything.
The origin of the cross in this flag lies in the fact that Joseph of Arimathea took our Lord and Master down off the cross. He knew what a cross was. He saw the Son of

Canadian Flag
God hanged on a cross. He took that body down and is the man who supposedly brought the first cross to Britain 2,000 years ago. I am not a hairsplitter or a quibbler but let us say he brought the first cross to Britain
2,000	years ago.
I am not a history teacher but a Canadian, born on a homestead out west. In case you think I am a displaced person perhaps I should state that I have a little native blood in my veins. I have this native blood in my veins because John McKay, who came out to Canada with Alexander Mackenzie, married a native out in western Canada. That was seven or eight generations ago so there is no need for you to be superior. Do not bother to look up your own family trees.
My grandfather was a Hudson's Bay factor at Lac la Biche in 1874. I will not go back in my family's history further than that.


An hon. Member:: We are just envious.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: My grandfather loved these native people and treated them fairly. When the natives burned down the fort they spared him and his family because of his honest and square dealings. This took place in the days of Louis Riel. Louis Riel believed in the British crown. Why should those who scream about Louis Riel being such a patriot now desire to do away with the British flag and the British crown? Why should they want to create another Stonehenge? Do not forget that the British crown and flag stand for the first cross brought to Britain 2,000 years ago.
I will not vote for any flag that denies to Canada the heritage of the Christian cross. The fact that there are three crosses in the union jack and in the corner of the red ensign does not make those flags any less loved. The red ensign was the flag representing a union of the cross of St. Andrew and the cross of St. George in 1801. We also included our Irish friends because we have always admired them. Most of Britain's good soldiers were Irishmen, including Montgomery and Alexander. Many Irishmen saw fit to fight many wars under the British flag.
I am not a waver of the British flag as the last word for democracy or freedom, but I say this, that under the British flag more freedom has been spread across this planet than under any other sign. I challenge you, one and all. Which of you who want to pull down our flag and trample it in the dirt v/ould dare to go across the line and suggest they should take their "glory" down and trample it in the dirt, and expect to live. Are we going to be something less than the land

of the north and the land of the free? We are all very quick to jump to our feet, throw out our little chests and show our visitors from the south our fishing holes and our important resources. What is our most important resource? I suggest our most important resource is our love for freedom and for fair play. That is our greatest resource.
Do any of you remember what happened to Uncle Tom, or do you remember Uncle Tom? Uncle Tom knew where to find freedom. He found freedom under the British flag. You want a distinctive flag for Canada.
I suggest we have a distinctive flag. I say we now have the most distinguished flag on this planet. I do not put our flag ahead of my country. Our flag is only a rallying point. Our flag was at that place where the Van Doos and the First Field Regiment stood side by side on the battlefield.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I should like to continue.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, please.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member who has the floor will realize that when another hon. member rises on a point of order he should be heard on that point. The Minister of Justice has risen on a point of order.


Guy Favreau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As everyone will agree, we would really have closure if I were not allowed to express my point of order.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Make sure you have something to say this time.


An hon. Member:: Shut up and listen.


Guy Favreau: I do not wish to repeat the argument that was made this afternoon, but I should like to suggest very respectfully that the debate now is directed toward a question of what would constitute a proper questionnaire to be put to the people of Canada if there is to be a plebiscite. We are bound in this regard by the decision rendered this afternoon by Mr. Speaker. That decision was appealed and confirmed on appeal. We are presently limited by the Speaker's decision in which he made the distinction as between that decision and the previous one rendered in respect of the principal amendment, stating that we are not concerned here with an alter-

native and, therefore, not concerned with the merits of an argument as to whether the red ensign is a distinctive Canadian flag. We are concerned with questions to be properly included in a questionnaire to be put to the people. So long as we do not discuss the matter of the drafting of the questionnaire but instead attempt to discuss the merits of the principal question we are out of order, as ruled by Mr. Speaker as recently as this afternoon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the point of order. The Minister of Justice has stated we are concerned with questions to be included in a proposed plebiscite. Surely in discussing those questions to be placed on a plebiscite an hon. member may give reasons why those questions should be included, and that is exactly what the hon. member has been doing.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I like better than to be challenged in my own field. I happened to take the trouble to obtain some legal training, before coming to this house, in anticipation of running into this type of argument. In every statute on our books one will find an interpretation clause. I am sorry I must use the facilities provided by an interpretation clause before referring to the meat of my subject. I have yet to get to the meat of my subject.
If I have not done so already, I should like to explain, what a flag means to some people, because some people I know do not know what a flag means. Mr. Speaker, I am using an interpretation clause to speak on the point of order. I am attempting to give a lawyer's answer to a lawyer. If you would like a citizen's answer to a citizen I invite you to stand up and tell me what a flag means to you and why you think the Christian cross should be removed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member concluded his remarks on the point of order?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the point raised by the Minister of Justice is well taken. On the other hand, I think the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has substance also. But we are definitely bound by a decision of the house made this afternoon to the effect that we should discuss this specific matter relating to the plebiscite.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be fair and lucid, and I think most hon. members are able to follow my argument. But
Canadian Flag
what is a flag without history? How can we say whether or not we will have a plebiscite if we do not know what a flag is? A flag is a rallying point for all national sentiments. The national sentiments of those of British origin are very strong, but they are not exclusive. Let me take my lawyer's training again and say that Canada is not one nation. Canada is a legal entity consisting of two main races of people joined together with an evolutionary system of government. The events which occurred on the plains of Abraham in 1759 no longer count. It does not matter who won the battle.


Mr. Clancy:: It does.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: In the treaty of Paris in 1763 Canada was ceded to Britain, which perhaps is an unfortunate truth. That may have been an unfortunate event in history, but I claim that by 1864 we had reached another stage in the evolution of our country. In 1864 the Fathers of Confederation met at Charlottetown, and I gather there will be another meeting there shortly to commemorate that event. I hope that the hundred years since 1864 have not been without their value. I hope that when this meeting takes place we will take another look at this legal entity of ours which we call Canada and which we hope will be a nation, and perhaps at that time we will reaffirm what one might call our marriage vows.
I for one have always been willing to meet Canadians of French origin on an equal footing. In case I am called to order I am talking about our dual heritage behind our flag. I am taking great pains to try and learn la belle langue frangaise and I shall continue to do so until I can converse as fluently in the French language as I can in my own.
I would submit that we are not in fact two different races of people, in the sense of being black or white, or distantly related. I think it can be said that the French and English are very closely related indeed, if not by actual blood certainly by culture. Their respective cultures have intermingled so much that it is hard to tell where British culture ends and the French starts. I am sure that many of us on reading our school history books were moved to tears at the story of Joan of Arc. I would be proud to have the flag of Joan of Arc incorporated in any Canadian flag.


An hon. Member:: Who wants it?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I would want it. That is why I have the right to stand up in this house. My family happen to be of Norman-English blood. My name in Norman-English is spelt "Bygge"

Canadian Flag
and means "barley". After a thousand years we are proud of our dual ancestry in Britain. Here in Canada after 100 years we are proud of our dual ancestry in Canada.
I am not trying to stir up strife here, Mr. Speaker. I am asking for co-operation. I am asking for the same level of brotherhood which is always being talked about and for the right to give my side of the story. One of the reasons I am proud of my British heritage is because I am also proud of our French. I do not think we can build a nation in Canada unless we take this attitude and are willing to forget the plains of Abraham and the last hundred years of bickering. Why not start now on August 17, 1964, and cut that out and get down to brass tacks? But we are not going to get down to brass tacks, any more than we did on the plains of Abraham where we used cannon, unless we sit down and talk things over. The battle of the plains of Abraham was 200 years ago. Have we learned nothing in 200 years? We failed with cannon, so let us get together and compromise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am talking of the dual cultures.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may be talking of dual cultures, but I think the dual culture part of his speech should be related to the plebiscite and to what questions are to be put on the plebiscite.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members do not know what a flag is, how can we decide that matter? I believe that the people of Canada do know their flag, because I have travelled through Ontario this last week and seen thousands of flags flying. Yesterday I went to Belleville and in a store there I saw being sold over the counter the Pearson pennant. There was a great big sign two feet square outside saying: "The flag of Canada".


Mr. Monteilh:: Shame.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Now, it may well become the flag of Canada. I for one will be the first to serve that flag if and when it is ratified.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I said if and when. But I say to hon. members opposite, do they think they have the right to make the decision, if they have not the courage to stand up and say why? I am not afraid to stand up and say why. There are 15,000 people in my district of French ancestry or of French relationship and a great many of them are proud of the present flag, the red ensign. I am willing to

take a democratic vote in Canada on any design. I believe in democracy and my ancestors have believed in it for 2,000 years, ever since the dignity of man was once and forever held up before God and man-the Christian ethic. I should like to hear someone stand up and tell me-I would much prefer it was the Prime Minister-why I must take down the present standard as my standard of behaviour.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Read Hansard.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: They took Joan of Arc's flag down. They put her lily banner in the dirt, and she was only a woman. But what a glorious woman she was. She put her lily banner out in front and never looked back, and with her very small army swept the ranks clear. She put the rightful heir, I am led to believe, on the throne of France. Then the king of France ratted on her, and you know the rest. Now she is a saint. Which of those opposite in their male pride will stand up and say that they think the lily banner of France or the cross of St. George should be laid in the dirt?
I am not running down, Mr. Speaker, homemade designs. I know where the flag was made. I know who drew it. He has boasted about it openly. He is the man who gave us a new flag. It was given to a man with great courage and determination, a man brave enough to put an economic gun to our heads and say: "Take this flag or you will lose your $18,000 a year". But my dear fellows, do you think there is any amount of money that would make me sell my flag or my country? They hang their heads and say: "Isn't that drivel?" But it is not drivel to me or to the
30,000	men who may never see the flag again. Are they going to rub it off all our national monuments?


An hon. Member:: We will rub you off.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Stand up and say that. Stand up and say it.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Have I the floor or haven't I?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor but the hon. member for Cape Breton South is rising on a question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member on the other side who made that threatening remark should have the courage to stand up, identify himself and repeat it, or is he ashamed to do so?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I did not utter the remark, but one thing that is running out is the opposition's sense of humour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anything we can do can destroy the parliamentary system, no matter how we mistreat it. It has lasted too long. But I do appeal to hon. members to put their petty opinions to one side. If you have not got the courage to stand up and ask for a free vote and if your leader has not got the courage to allow a free vote, then we have no alternative but to put the matter to the people of Canada in a plebiscite. This is the substance of the matter. We are down to it now. Have we not got the courage to stand up on our own feet and say what we think? We have just had a glorious example of the lack of it. I would not like to think that kind of behaviour was typical of any segment of our population. I know that the people in the galleries and the people throughout the country are not ashamed to stand up and say where they stand on the flag and I want to give them that opportunity.
Some might say, when did you dream this up? I have never sidestepped the question of the flag. In Hansard for January 21, 1962 you will find a 20 minute speech by me on the subject. I begged hon. members then and I got little response. So I am not being partisan in this matter. I think we have all been delinquent. We all know what our flag has been and we might as well have ratified it 100 years ago. French Canada has always been proud of her allegiance to the British crown, at least in the last 100 years, and if they are not now, then I say stand up and say so. This is a free country. That is one of the advantages of being a Canadian.
Do those people who talk about secession really want to secede? I am sure Newfoundland does not want to secede. All the people there want to do is to retain their British traditions. Joey Smallwood told you that in no uncertain terms and you had to change your original resolution. Many people across the country admired the Prime Minister temporarily when he said: I will come out and cut the Gordian knot; I will give you the opportunity to make a nice clean decision on the flag; I will offer you this flag so that you can clear up the issue once and for all, so that you can stand up and be counted and be Canadian.
That sounded fine, but when Joey did not like it a two-headed resolution was brought
Canadian Flag
forward. Now we are going to have two flags. If you go to Britain and talk to the Queen you wave the union jack but if you are somewhere else you wave something else. Is this the way to be united? I am sure there is not one member in this chamber who does not believe in democracy and if we had a free vote and the vote was 51 to 49 I am sure we would all stand up and sing "O Canada", salute the flag and say God save the Queen. If this is not so I am very much misled. I am in the wrong company if this is not true. This is what I thought when I first came here and this is what Joey Smallwood thought when he led his loyal little island into confederation. He said: We will now become part of the brightest star in the British crown. He meant that. Don't think Joey didn't mean it. He is not going to be nice to you boys if you do away with the flag. You know that, so you have backed down.
Now you are ready to back down, for what? Is it for the $18,000 and the splinter groups because you have not got the courage to stand on your own feet? Oh, they are going to bring in an amendment and you are going to vote for it because that is the only way to save your political future.


Mr. Plourde:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
If the Conservatives have nothing but stupid things to tell the house over and over again, it would be better for them to remain seated, because we are ready for the question.
Their filibustering tactics are detrimental to the interests of the Canadian people. I am getting sick and tired of the Conservatives.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege. The hon. member for Athabasca.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We have the first question in the suggested plebiscite, will we retain the red ensign? Of course we should. Second, should we have a modification? I do not like backing down at all, but I certainly put my country ahead of my own personal opinion and pride. I would say that if we must have a modification of the flag I love in order to keep Canada one I will vote for it. Third, should we have the three maple leaves flag? I see little merit in it though I like the maple leaf. We used to sing "The Maple Leaf Forever" and it was a term of derision. A lot of people in Canada did not like it. But what did we of British origin do? We abandoned any

Canadian Flag
idea of making it our national anthem because it divided us and we have adopted "O Canada", a French Canadian song with very-strong religious overtones. We have compromised and accepted that, many of us perhaps with heavy hearts, but those who want to see a greater Canada and who love this country will take "O Canada" and sing it with that much more enthusiasm 'because it is one of the beloved songs of our French brothers. We have compromised. I do not think there has been one word said in any part of the house against that decision.
I for one would like to see a package deal and have national service also. Some will say: Oh, this is an old soldier speaking and he cannot forget. No, it is hard to forget the friends, the volunteers I served with. It is very hard to forget and I will not forget them. But I am not going to put sloppy sentiment ahead of the unification of my country. So I say that if the majority of members of the house in a free vote will stand up and conscientiously say that they honestly want to do away with everything we have had in the past, that only with this new flag can we march on as a fully united country, that every man jack, be he native North American or French or English, will rally to these colours and if needed will give up his time, his money and loved ones, put them all on the table and say, "I will go", then I will accept that decision. Some enlisted because they were unemployed but I will not say that about my friends. I will not say that about the ones who did not come back. I will not say it about the boys in bomber command. I will say this to defend myself, which I rarely like to do. If I am the only yellow one in the family it is a peculiar thing because in my father's family there were four brothers, one of whom was in the British navy, one in the Strathcona Horse, one in the South African police and my father was in the mounted police. I have three brothers. My oldest brother was in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Let us keep them flying. My second brother was in the Royal Canadian Navy, the senior service, and my youngest brother was in the R.A.F. I myself tried to fly and could not qualify so I had to go into the lowly artillery.
I appeal to the soldiers and non-soldiers. I really believe we do need symbols. We do need a rallying point. There are times when nothing else but the sight of the old flag rallies you out of the dirt, and not the flag on a pole like the hon. member for Edmonton West said. No, you do not go in for flying

the flag, but you fly it somewhere. You fly it deep down inside you where it cannot be got at when you are darned good and scared. There are no heroes in battle. You land on your face in the mud but you still get up and go on again simply because you marched into school 15 or 20 years before singing "O Canada" and looking at a little piece of red bunting flying at the masthead.
Do not ask me to turn my back on it, to forget it and never look at it again. If we have to have this new flag I want you to do this much at least. Parade a man from every regiment in Canada that ever served under the red ensign and let them march to the peace tower and lay the red ensign away with glory where it belongs. Do not let it down and say that it means nothing, because it means a great deal to a lot of people.
I do not like to have to talk like this. I do not want to have to go to the widows of this country and say that we have no flag. The people in Holland know that we do. All you have to do is take out one of these little flags about three inches square and show it to the people in Holland. They will crowd around you like a bunch of chickens for a crust of bread; they will be glad to have you back. You should have seen the tears running down their faces when we went into Amsterdam. Where these little flags came from I do not know. The people waved them in Amsterdam. You say, what battles were you in? Everybody cannot fight battles, but we can all be patriots. Is there something smelly about that word now? When nurse Edith Cavell died, she was not ashamed to say "Patriotism is not enough". Do you know what she meant?


An hon. Member:: Order.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: What would you like to order? If you people really want me to sit down, I will. The single maple leaf design is only a political compromise and everyone in this chamber knows it. There would be nothing wrong with accepting the triple maple leaf if this would unite us. If it is going to unite us, if you are going to serve it, then there is nothing wrong with accepting it.
You laugh at the Legion and say they have no right to this flag. Are we taking it away from them? Were they all drunks? Were they all unemployed? Are they all drunks now? They were drunk with patriotism once. I am not willing to compromise on the single maple leaf design. I am not willing to take the triple maple leaf design on the

basis of my own choice. However, I say again, and I will keep on saying it, that I am willing to bow to a democratic choice. If each and every one of you can stand up on a free vote and vote for this then I challenge you to request your own leader to do so.
I suppose that the four questions listed are good enough for a plebiscite. I honestly believe that if the people of Canada have this choice, then the first question will win on the first ballot. If there is any way of satisfying our Canadians of French origin I am certainly willing to do that. I have nothing but love and admiration for these people. They are our flesh and blood. The fact that they have a rather difficult and beautiful language should make no difference. We follow branches of the same religion, at least. Here again, I think we have had an evolution in religious thinking. If they had had an ecumenical conference 500 years ago, who knows, there might never have been a division in the Christian church.
We have listened to one of our members here speak about nihilism and materialism; taking everything out of the flag and having nothing left. I think there may be something in this modern psychology which is attempting to do away with our standards. If we lose faith in each other we stand to gain nothing. I am one who has always stood for individual enterprise.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Is this not in order? It is the essence of our British culture just as I am certain it is of our French culture. The French are making a great contribution to our country. They are alive in the arts. They are intensely proud of their origin. I say if there is any way of giving them any more recognition, if there is any way we can cooperate to the slightest degree to make them forget the errors of the past or even the facts of the past, things we cannot undo, then I am in favour of that because we can certainly march on into the future together.
Let us have this referendum. If these four questions are not satisfactory, then perhaps we could consider others. I have thought about them and I cannot think of anything else which would improve them. We who are here have done a great deal to cloud the issue. We have said things, perhaps, that we should not have said. We have made this issue partisan, whether we want to or not. This applies to both sides. The only fair way is to go to the people and let them make this 20220-439
Business of the House
decision. I do not think it is necessary to have an election. There is a great deal of work we should do. I do not make this statement out of fear I assure you. You can look up the record. I think it would be a waste of time. I am sorry that no longer is the crown allowed to be the independent referee it used to be in the old days. Now the power to call an election rests in the hands of the Prime Minister. We all know this has been the case since 1925. It is up to him. There is no purpose served by looking at the Leader of the Opposition and saying, you fellows can force an election. The Prime Minister holds this stick and everybody in Canada knows it. This stick is being used, and I think it is an unfair one. I do not believe the flag should be a partisan question.
I have been giving you my own views. I have not been directed by any other member in this chamber. Perhaps some of them would have liked it better if I had not said some of the things I have said. However, there are times when if you do not speak, the very rocks cry out. I take full responsibility for everything I have said. I meant every word of it. I assure you that if we can find some flag design which will unite our country, I will be the first to vote for it and I will be the first to serve that flag when it is decided upon.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, it should be obviously a time of excitement when a nation is choosing a new flag. The fact that this is not possible should be abundantly clear to the whole house. The reason I make this statement is something I want to follow up, but I see the clock and it is 10.30.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Guy Favreau: May
I be allowed to revert to motions with the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Favreau: The various parties, through their respective house leaders have been advised that the opening session of the national conference on education will take place in this house on Friday, August 21. I, therefore, ask the consent of the house to move:
That when this house does adjourn on August 20, 1964, it shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. the

Business of the House
following day and that the relevant standing and provisional orders be suspended in relation thereto, so as to allow this session to be held in this house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask this one question? Translated into layman's language, does that mean we will adjourn at six o'clock on Friday?


Guy Favreau: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
It being thirty minutes alter ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, August 18, 1964