1964-08-26

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members of the official opposition. On page 7 of the August 28 issue of Time magazine the hon. member for Red Deer is reported to have said, after the meeting of the party leaders last week on the flag resolution, that the leader of the official opposition refused to consult with his own party. I quote his reported words:
Mr. Diefenbaker refused to consult with his own party, or to consider any reasonable compromise himself.
I can say, Mr. Speaker, in connection with these matters, that the leader of the official opposition did consult with his party at all times, and the stand he has taken on the flag issue represents the opinion of this party. Either the hon. member for Red Deer is talking through his hat or he has been misquoted by this magazine. Since members of the official opposition know the quotation in Time magazine to be a complete falsehood, I would ask that the hon. member for Red Deer withdraw it and dissociate himself from Time's incorrect news commentary.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member, I should like to say that the leader of the Social Ci edit party is absent in his riding with his family. I think we may well take note of the question raised by the hon. member, even though I am sure what was said is true.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: At this stage I do not believe any further discussion will be particularly useful. It seems to me that we should await the return of the hon. member for Red Deer.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: On this question of privilege, the hon. member who has just spoken used the words that he believed this statement to be
true. I think he should immediately withdraw those words or present proof to the house that his statement is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The best evidence, of course, will be what the hon. member for Red Deer will have to say on his own behalf. I do not see any purpose in continuing or perhaps in listening to secondary evidence. Let us hear from the hon. member concerned first.


Malcolm MacInnis: Further to the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; this is not the time for a discussion of this question of privilege. Certain allegations have been made. Let us hear both sides of the story before we reach a conclusion.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, the remark just made by a member of the Social Credit party is certainly a reflection on myself and every other member of the official opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely a member of a group in this house is entitled to stand up and say that the matter raised as a question or alleged question of privilege will be brought to the attention of his leader on his return. That is a matter of courtesy.



VOLUNTARY RESTRAINTS ON EXPORTS TO CANADA

Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to table a copy of a letter dated August 25 which I have received from the charge d'affaires of Japan informing me of the voluntary restraints which the Japanese government is applying on the export of certain products to Canada during 1964. These decisions were taken by the Japanese government following consultations which began in December, 1963 between the Japanese and Canadian governments. The levels of restraint which Japan is maintaining during 1964 provide generally for orderly increases over the 1963 levels. These increases are in the order of 3 per cent to 5

Trade with Japan
per cent, and in virtually all cases these increases are not greater than the expected growth in the market for the products in question.
By leave of the house I suggest that the charge's letter be printed as an appendix to Hansard in view of the interest it has for a large number of people.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, that should not be printed as an appendix to Hansard. As an appendix to Votes and Proceedings possibly it would be in order, but not for Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the details being published in Votes and Proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would like to take this opportunity to express appreciation for the cooperation shown by the Japanese government in the working out of these arrangements. The discussions have, of course, been long and difficult. We would not expect them to be otherwise, since they affect important sectors of Japanese trade just as they relate to important and sensitive sectors of the Canadian economy.
It might be useful if I reminded the house that last year during the course of consultations the Canadian government agreed to the removal of vinyl raincoats from the list of items under restraint by Japan. Following our policy of not seeking restraints on exports when damage to Canadian producers is no longer threatened, we agreed this year that plywood might be removed from the list of items under restraint.
It might also be useful if I said a word about our discussions with Japan on exports of worsted fabrics. There has been some speculation in the press on this subject and, accordingly, I would like to report briefly on where this matter now stands.
In late 1963 representations were received on behalf of Canadian producers of worsteds asking that Japan be asked to restrain exports. These representations were examined closely; it was apparent that until that time the very sharp increase in imports from Japan had been largely at the expense of other supplying countries, and had not directly affected Canadian producers. It was evident, however, that if imports from Japan continued to grow at that rate Canadian producers would soon be threatened with material injury. Japanese exports of worsteds to Canada in 1963 rose by 60 per cent over 1962. The statistics so far available indicate that

imports of worsteds from Japan this year may be up by a further 50 per cent or 60 per cent over 1963. This would represent a total value of imports of Japanese worsteds far in excess of Japanese exports of worsteds to all of Europe last year.
It is important to note that Japanese exports of worsteds to virtually every industrial market except Canada and the United States are strictly controlled, either in Japan or in the importing country. This means that exports from Japan will tend to be concentrated on the relatively open Canadian market.
While we have had a number of discussions with the Japanese, no agreement has so far been reached on how to deal with this problem or the level of restraint that might be warranted. I will be taking this matter up further with Japanese ministers at the meeting in Tokyo next week, and I am still hopeful that some understanding on worsted fabrics will be reached which will meet the legitimate interests of all parties concerned, including the Canadian producers, the Japanese exporters and the Canadian users of Japanese goods.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: I understand the finalization of these matters will take place in further meetings in Tokyo next week. But the minister said, I believe, in the early part of his remarks that the expected increase in quotas would about balance the increase in the requirements of this country. This, it seems to me, leaves a somewhat narrow margin for any increase in production in Canada and for the increased consumption in Canada of Canadian products.
It has been reported that there has been a worsening of our deficit position, or that there has been a big increase in our imports and a drop in exports; also in regard to the United States there has been a decrease in exports and an increase in imports amounting to 6.9 per cent. I wonder whether the minister is keeping this over-all picture in mind as he looks forward to further increases in imports of goods from Japan. I wonder whether he does not feel this situation is worthy of serious consideration.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: When we have had a chance to examine this list of voluntary restraints on Japanese imports into Canada we shall be in a better position to make a statement regarding it.
However, I think the house should remember-and I am sure the government is aware of this fact-that Japan is still buying from us a great deal more than we are buying from

her. Trade is a two way street, and if Japan and other countries are to buy from Canada they can only do so if they are able to earn Canadian dollars with which to pay for these goods. I think this must be kept in mind when we examine these voluntary restrictions. We shall be glad, in this party, to consider this list and make a statement at an appropriate time.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, we listened with interest, of course, to the statement just made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) on trade and financial arrangements made or to be made with Japan. However, in this connection one thing in particular should be borne in mind, and it is this. Even if our trade balance with Japan is favourable we should not forget that the labour content in the goods we import from Japan is much higher than the labour content in the goods we export to Japan. As a matter of fact, our exports to Japan consist mostly of raw materials with, unfortunately, a very small Canadian labour content, so that, as an end result, we are still showing a deficit as far as labour is concerned.
The same thing can be said about our trade with other countries; that is the problem we are now facing and will continue to face unless we change our policy as far as international trade is concerned.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say about the statement just made by the Minister of Finance. According to the minister we have a favourable trade balance with Japan since they import more from us than we do from them.
Now, some Canadian associations have complained to the Minister of Finance against some sort of dumping by Japan in Canada. Consequently, I feel the minister is not quite right in saying that after investigating the situation he is satisfied that such dumping does no harm to Canadian trade and industry.
As he knows, there are Canadian and American companies in Japan at present. As the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) said a moment ago, our raw material is exported to Japan where it is cheaper to process it, and then it is exported back to Canada. Those are our imports. Let no one tell us that our trade and industry do not suffer from the fact that Canadians settle in Japan instead of producing what we need right here in Canada.
Questions
We live in an era when it is absolutely necessary to do business with the other nations of the world, but not to the disadvantage of Canada or other nations. That our international trade should balance, that is in order. However, let no one tell us that goods which enter Canada from Japan and which could be produced here in Canada do not hurt Canadian industry. If Canadians expatriate themselves and settle in Japan because labour is cheaper, the necessary action should be taken to encourage production and industry in Canada so that we may have more and more control over our general economy as well as over imports and exports which concern us.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Does the R.C.M.P. have on its staff, on duty in Toronto, an officer named Johnstone and, if so, on what duties was the said officer assigned on June 22 and June 23, 1964?
2.	Did Officer Johnstone visit the premises located at 50 Walton street, Toronto on June 22, 1964, and, if so (a) was he alone or in the company of others (b) what was the nature of Officer Johnstone's duties on that occasion and what duties were performed by any such persons accompanying him?
3.	Did Officer Johnstone on June 23, 1964, have in his possession or under his jurisdiction any equipment that could be used for the tapping of telephone lines and, if so, was the said equipment put to any use?
4.	Was Officer Johnstone in conversation with Mr. A. G. Dodd on June 23, 1964, and, if so, what was the nature of such conversation?
5.	Has the government any information regarding admissions by representatives of the Bell Telephone Company relating to the tapping of telephone lines?
6.	Does the R.C.M.P. own a green 1962 Mercury, licence number 722-412, and, if so (a) does this vehicle resemble a Bell Telephone vehicle (b) how and where was this vehicle employed on June 22 and June 23, 1964?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this question is in six parts. I am advised by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that the answers are as follows:
1.	There is a member of the R.C.M.P. in Toronto named Johnston and his duties on June 22 and 23, 1964 involved a confidential investigation.
2.	No, he was in the area on June 23 on duty of a confidential nature which is not in the public interest to disclose.
7280	HOUSE OF
Questions
3.	No.
4.	Yes, the conversation related to matters of a confidential nature which are not in the public interest to disclose.
5.	No.
6.	The R.C.M.P. does own a 1962 Mercury passenger sedan, licence number 722-412. It does not resemble a Bell Telephone vehicle, nor could it be mistaken for a Bell Telephone vehicle. It is not a truck and the R.C.M.P. does not own, or has not used, a green truck.


ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF DISARMAMENT
Mr. Priiiie: 1.	Is there any agency or department of the federal government charged with the responsibility for studying economic effects of general disarmament and particularly effects resulting from shifts in the nature of defence procurements and the closure of defence bases and, if so (a) which agencies or departments have these responsibilities (b) what agencies or departments have the responsibility for implementing such plans and studies?
2.	During the years 1963 and 1964 to date, what reports have been prepared for the government on the economic consequences of disarmament?
3.	During the years 1963 and 1964 to date, has the government of Canada submitted to the secretary general of the United Nations any reports on economic plans for disarmament?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On September 22, 1961, the secretariat of the United Nations requested member governments to provide certain information in connection with a study which a United Nations consultative group was undertaking on the economic and social consequences of disarmament. On March 18, 1964 the secretary general of the United Nations requested member governments to provide additional information in connection with a further report on this subject which he intended to submit to the 37th session of ECOSOC and to the 19th session of the general assembly.
The government of Canada prepared replies in response to both of these requests for information. These replies are contained in United Nations documents E/3593/Rev. 1/ Add. 1-5 and E/3898/Add. 3 of July 17, 1964 and are available in the parliamentary library.
A number of government departments and agencies co-operated in preparing the replies to the United Nations. In the performance of their normal functions, various government departments and agencies generally endeavour to anticipate and prepare for future developments likely to have important economic effects. Any imminent prospect of significant


progress on disarmament would, of course, be given appropriate weight in such forecasts or plans.


AL GRAHAM
Mr. Coates: Did the Minister of Labour recently appoint A1 Graham to his personal staff, and, if so (a) at what salary (b) what are the duties associated with the position, and (c) what are Mr. Graham's qualifications for the position in question?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: (a) Mr. Bernard Alasdair Graham was appointed to the staff of the Minister of Labour at a salary of $15,000 per annum; (b) Mr. Graham is a special assistant to the minister; (c) intelligence and ability.


R.C.A.F. AND ARMY RESERVES
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	What is the total number of enlisted men in the R.C.A.F. reserve by province of origin?
2.	What is the total number of men enlisted in the R.C.N. reserve by province of origin?
3.	What is the total number of enlisted men in the Canadian Army reserve by province of origin?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1, 2 and 3. For the purposes of these questions, province of origin is taken to mean the place of enrolment on enlistment. Strengths of enlisted men as of 30 June, 1964 are as follows:
R.C.A.F. R.C.N. Army Auxiliary Reserve Reserve
Newfoundland	58	653Prince Edward Island	44	498Nova Scotia	112	3,105New Brunswick	72	2,689Quebec	145	218	8,165Ontario	175	773	14,071Manitoba	166	247	1,888Saskatchewan	151	128	2,173Alberta	247	3,663British Columbia,	299	3,308
Yukon and Northwest Territories etc.
637	2,198	40,213


PURCHASES OF SCALLOPS BY ARMED FORCES
Mr. Crouse: How many pounds of scallops were purchased by all branches of the armed forces during 1962 and 1963?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 226,564 lbs.


DAMAGE FROM NATIONAL DEFENCE SPRAY OPERATIONS, N.B.
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence carry out spraying operations in connection with brush control at camp Gagetown and, if so, have complaints been received to the effect that heavy damage was inflicted on crops in the Mangerville area, Sunbury county, N.B., as a result of such spraying operations?
2.	Has the department taken steps to ascertain the extent of any such damage and, if so, what are the details of any such damage?
3.	Is the department taking steps to indemnify farmers who suffered losses and, if so, what steps are being taken for such purpose and to what extent will farmers be indemnified?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. A contract for spraying operations in connection with brush control at camp Gagetown during the period 2-22 July, 1964, was arranged through Defence Construction Limited. One complaint alleging damage to crops has been received.
2 and 3. No. The contractor responsible for the spraying operations is receiving and assessing claims for alleged damage.


LOSSES FROM ARMY WORMS, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture taken steps to ascertain the extent of the damage caused by army worms to field crops in the maritime provinces and, if so, what are the details of any such damage?
2.	Is the department taking steps to indemnify farmers who suffered losses and, if so, what steps are being taken for such purpose and to what extent will farmers be indemnified?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. It is not yet possible to make an accurate assessment of the damage caused by army worm infestations in the maritime provinces since the army worm feeds only on plants of the grass family, some of which will show recovery after army worm damage. Moderate heavy infestations were reported in the southern parts of New Brunswick as far north as Centreville and preliminary surveys indicate severe damage in the Moncton, Woodstock, Sussex, Centreville, Long Creek and Hallville areas. In Nova Scotia infestations were reported in the vicinity of Truro, Grand Pre, Canning, Port Williams, Clarence, Wil-mot and Bridgewater. In Prince Edward Island infestations were reported at Albery Plains, New Perth and Fortune areas.
2. Programs of relief assistance on account of crop losses are initiated by provincial authorities.
Questions


ARMY WORM LOSSES, VICTORIA-CARLETON CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-: Carleton):
1.	Has any Information been received from the government of New Brunswick concerning damage to crops in the constituency of Victoria-Carleton, due to army worm infestation and, if so, what are the details of such damage?
2.	Has the government considered any method of indemnifying losses incurred by farmers through no fault or neglect of their own and, if so, what are the details of such indemnities?


Harry William Hays: 1. No. However, reports from departmental officials indicate that there were severe infestations in that area.
2. Programs of relief assistance on account of crop losses are initiated by provincial authorities.


ARMY WORM DAMAGE, KINGS COUNTY, N.B.
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What is the extent in area and the estimate of value of crop loss as a result of the infestation of army worms in central Kings county, New Brunswick?
2.	What federal or provincial or joint programs are being conducted to eradicate or minimize the infestation?
3.	What financial assistance is available under federal legislation to farmers who have suffered financial losses as a result of this infestation?


Harry William Hays: 1. No accurate assessment of the damage by army worms in central Kings county is yet available. Surveys indicated heavy infestation in the area.
2.	The present infestation of army worms has run its course. The damage is inflicted on crops over a period of 14 to 16 days. The second crop of larvae, the offspring of the late summer moths, have never been known to cause damage. As yet no successful method of forecasting infestations has been developed but survey methods to determine the abundance and distribution of very young larvae have been developed and are used to indicate infestations likely to be of economic importance. Such surveys enable warnings of possible outbreaks to be made in time for producers to follow chemical control measures developed to prevent serious crop losses. Warnings were issued by the department early in July of potential infestations in the maritime provinces.
3.	Under the Crop Insurance Act the federal government contributes 20 per cent of the premiums and one half of the administrative costs under approved provincial crop

Questions
insurance schemes designed to insure individual farmers against crop losses. However, since a crop insurance program has not been adopted in New Brunswick, this legislation would not be operative in the present instance. There is no other specific legislation authorizing assistance as a result of this infestation.


MAIL CONTRACT, R.R. 2, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	For what reason were tenders called for R.R. No. 2, Amherst, N.S.?
2.	Was the starting point associated with the route in question changed and, if so, for what reason?
3.	How many bids were received and what were the amounts of the bids in question?
4.	Who was the successful tenderer for the service?
5.	What was the amount of the previous contract?
6.	How long had the previous contractor provided the service in question?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: 1. To obtain a formal contract.
2.	Yes. Starting point changed to the Amherst post office. It is the general policy to have rural routes start and finish at a post office.
3.	Three. Harvey Ralph Noiles, R.R. No. 2, Amherst, $3,200; Walter F. Dickeson, R.R. No. 1, Newport, $3,500; Mrs. Gweneth G. Embree, R.R. No. 2, Amherst, $3,650.
4.	Not yet determined. In accordance with the terms of the Post Office Act, an inquiry is now in progress to determine whether the lowest tenderer is able to meet the requirements of the service.
5.	$3,319.15 per annum.
6.	Forty one years.


CONSIDERATION OF POWER PROJECTS, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Flemming (Victoria-: Carleton):
1.	Is the Atlantic development board reconsidering the allotment of the grant to the province of New Brunswick of $20,000,000 for the Mactaquac project in New Brunswick in view of the announcement by the premier of Newfoundland that the Hamilton falls project is likely to be proceeded with without delay and that the power secured from Hamilton falls would become available to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island through the medium of a distribution station located at Sackville, New Brunswick at an estimated price of 4 mills per k.w.h.?
2.	Is the Atlantic development board considering assisting financially in the distribution of power generated at Hamilton falls as an alternative to the Mactaquac project?

3.	What, in detail, are the plans of the Hamilton falls project, Passamaquoddy development and Chignecto tidal development now in possession of the Atlantic development board?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am informed by the Atlantic development board as follows:
1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	The Atlantic development board has not received official plans or reports concerning the Hamilton falls project.
With respect to Passamaquoddy development, the board has in its possession a copy of (a) the report of the secretary, U.S. department of interior to President John F. Kennedy, July 1963; (b) the report by Passamaquoddy Saint John river study committee to the secretary, U.S. department of the interior, dated August 1964.
On tidal development, upper bay of Fundy the board has (a) a copy of the report made for the New Brunswick government in 1962 entitled "Appraisal of Tidal Power in the Bay of Fundy"; (b) a study on sub-surface conditions at Shepody bay and Cumberland basin, commissioned by the board in 1963 and received June 1964.


FARM LOAN APPLICATIONS, KAMOURASKA COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Dionne: How many applications for farm loans have been received by the Farm Credit Corporation from farmers of Kamouraska county in the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and of this number how many were accepted?


Harry William Hays: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that statistical records are kept by fiscal years. For the municipal county of Kamouraska, the answer is:
Fiscal	No. Appli-	No.Year	cations Rec'd	Accep1960-61	1	11961-62	2	21962-63	13	81963-64	12	8


CANADIAN ARSENALS AMMUNITION CONTRACT WITH C.I.L.
Mr. Beaule: 1.	What is the amount of the Canadian Arsenals contract for making ammunition on behalf of C.I.L.?
2.	Did C.I.L. refuse nearly 50 per cent of the production and, if so, for what reason?
3.	What will be the cost of the extra work involved?
4.	How many hours of overtime will have to be worked if this contract is to be completed?
5.	Who will assume any loss involved?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	Total value of Canadian Arsenals Limited contracts for making high velocity sporting ammunition on behalf of C.I.L. is $219,684., consisting of nine purchase orders. Most of this volume relates to new Canadian production, having been formerly imported.
2.	The first production lot, representing approximately 11% of the above amount, was refused by C.I.L. and returned for re-inspection. Standards of inspection for exterior finish of high velocity sporting ammunition are more demanding than those for military ammunition, which until now have governed manufacture at C.A.L.
3.	Costs, in excess of those estimated for the contracts and due to higher quality standards required, are now being established. In view of the different standard of inspection, it is expected that renegotiation with C.I.L. will result in price adjustment.
4.	Overtime will continue till September 4 so as to meet urgent delivery schedule of all the various calibres on order and will total approximately 1000 hours.
5.	Para. 3 refers.


INCREASE IN FAMILY ALLOWANCE
Mr. Ouellel: Is the government taking steps to increase family allowances to $30 a month in order to bring them in line with other sectors of our growing national economy and, if not, what are the reasons for not taking such action?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As this is a matter of government policy any announcement will be made by the government at the appropriate time.


REMOVAL OF TARIFFS ON MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Has consideration been given to permitting the importation into Canada of relaxation chairs and other medical equipment, used in the treatment of retarded children, free from importation taxes or tariffs when these articles are not manufactured in Canada?
2.	Has consideration been given to extending exemptions from import tax on tariffs to all medical equipment facilities imported into Canada, when the same or reasonable equivalents thereto are not manufactured in Canada and, if so, what is the decision, or when is it to be announced?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: In the course of preparations for the last budget, consideration
Questions
was given to a number of representations requesting that the special end use items in the Customs Tariff providing for the duty free entry of certain equipment and materials used by hospitals, educational and religious institutions be broadened to cover a wider range of commodities, and that duty free entry privileges be extended to additional groups and organizations, both non profit and commercial, which do not currently enjoy such benefits. On the other hand, consideration was also given to representations suggesting that the duty free entry under these items should be restricted to goods which cannot be supplied by Canadian producers.
Having regard to these divergent points of view, it was decided that the best way to ensure full consideration of both sides of the question would be to refer the matter to the tariff board for review and report. The intention to do so was indicated in the budget speech of March 16, 1964.
The tariff board has announced that, in due course, it will conduct public hearings regarding this matter under reference No. 134: Equipment for hospitals and other institutions.


*RED MAPLE LEAF ON COAT OF ARMS
Mr. Churchill: 1.	What is the special significance of the small single red maple leaf on the coat of arms of Canada?
2.	What is the wording of the explanatory note concerning this small red leaf given in the descriptive booklet on Canada's coat of arms published by the secretary of state in 1923?
3.	What explanatory note is given concerning this small red maple leaf in the booklet on Canada's coat of arms published by the Secretary of State in 1964?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, this question is in three parts.
1. The following is an extract from a memorandum prepared by Colonel C. F. Hamilton whose advice was sought by the committee appointed by order in council P.C. 668 dated 26th March 1919 to inquire into and report upon the advisability of requesting His Majesty the King, through the College of Heralds, for an amendment to the armorial bearings of Canada:
Extract from short memorandum by Colonel C. F. Hamilton, June, 1921:
The maple leaf is our most cherished emblem. In the crest its red colour may be taken as a reference alike to the autumnal glories of our woods, and to the red maple leaf which on our service flags indicated one who had sealed with his life's blood his devotion to his country.

Inquiries of the Ministry
2.
The crest is a lion, in its right paw a red maple leaf, which latter during the great war, came to be used as a symbol of sacrifice.
3. In the description in non-heraldic terms of Canada's coat of arms, 1964, we find the following:
On the royal helmet, draped in a mantle of white and red, is the crest consisting of a wreath or ring of twisted white and red silk on which stands a crowned gold lion holding in its right paw a red maple leaf.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I ask that motions Nos. 134 and 158 be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the matter concerns two departments I will direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him whether there has been any request by the United Nations or consideration given by the government of Canada to the reduction by 80 per cent of the Canadian contingent in the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus. Has any communication been made to the Prime Minister in this regard?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisler):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no such request received by me or any member of the government; nor has any communication passed between the government and the United Nations on that subject. I am informed that the reports to the effect that such a reduction is being contemplated are without foundation.


John George Diefenbaker: Then is any consideration being given at the moment to any increase in the size of the contribution by Canada or other nations to the troops comprising the UN force today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the matter of the possible increase in the force is, I believe, being considered by the secretary general, but no communication has been received from him on the matter. Nor has any request been made by the Canadian government for any such increase.


John George Diefenbaker: Has any informal consideration been given by the government to increasing the numbers in the Canadian force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, no consideration, formal or informal, has been given.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has any information regarding reports that the governments of Greece and Turkey have agreed on a proposal for the union of Cyprus with Greece under certain conditions. Can he give the house any idea what those conditions are, and does he know through diplomatic channels what is the reaction of the Cypriot government to this proposal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, Canada is not a party to the negotiations in Geneva, and would not be expected to become a party because of the neutral position we occupy as a member of the force itself. There have been discussions between the government of Greece and the government of Turkey and the mediator in Geneva, but beyond that it is not desirable to go at this time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could the minister inform the house whether the Canadian government was consulted on the planned reduction of the United Nations force in Cyprus?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just gave an answer to such a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and the answer was no.


David Réal Caouette: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question.
Since the government was not consulted, could he tell us whether, according to him, the forces to be withdrawn will be those under the financial responsibility of the United Nations or whether the reduction will be proportional to the number of troops maintained by the various countries in Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member misunderstood the answer given by the Prime Minister and the explanation I myself gave him in answering his question, a few moments ago.

A reduction of the force is not contemplated. That question is merely based on reports published in this morning's newspapers, but there was no official communication between the Canadian government and the secretary general or Mr. Galo Plaza, the political representative of the secretary general in Cyprus.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Is he in a position to tell us when he expects to table in the house the report of the royal commission on taxation and whether he is receiving in the meantime interim reports enabling him to prepare his next year's budget and to grant Canadians the tax cuts they hope for?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have a meeting arranged with the chairman of the royal commission on taxation for tomorrow morning at nine o'clock, during the course of which I hope to find out from him how the work is going and when he thinks the report of the commission will be ready for presentation to the government. I can assure my hon. friend that the report will be made public very soon after it is received, or perhaps I should say after it is printed.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us whether he intends to follow the example of the United States government which is on the point of granting a second tax cut?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think we are quite competent to arrange our own directives in these matters.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secre-
Inquiries of the Ministry tary of State for External Affairs. With regard to the conference which I understand is going to be held here in the near future involving those countries which have been invited to discuss permanent peace keeping arrangements under the United Nations, can the minister tell the house when he expects this meeting will take place?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the precise date has not yet been fixed, but progress in that regard has been made.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether it is to be this fall or this winter? Can he give us some idea?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would expect it would be this autumn.


COMBINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Would he tell us whether he intends to implement the principles of the brief presented to him recently by the national automobile products dealers association?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I did not understand the first part of the question. However, I know that I have read such a brief, and if such is the question, the answer is yes; if not, I shall look up the question in Hansard tomorrow and give a more detailed answer.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
MONTREAL-INTERVENTION BY FORESTRY MINISTER IN "LA presse" STRIKE
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry.
Since the newspapers report this morning that the negotiations of the employees on strike at the newspaper La Presse in Montreal are moving toward a settlement, would the minister assure us that he will not interfere with this settlement in order not to jeopardize its favourable result?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can read the answer I gave in this house with respect to this matter, about a month ago.


EDUCATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Last week the minister indicated that he hoped he would be able to tell the house last Monday what the final arrangements were under the student loan legislation. Apart from the provincial boards that are required, can he give the house an up to date report?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am planning to make a full statement tomorrow on what the situation is up to that moment.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have any instructions been sent out that school principals will have a voice in the processing of applications for student loans?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.


SUGGESTED PROVISION OF SCHOLARSHIPS IN ENGINEERING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the shortage of professional engineers in Canada, as recently announced by the national employment service, and the recruitment of foreign engineers, would the government consider the provision of attractive scholarships to encourage students to enter this field?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into that question, Mr. Speaker. Of course the student loan provisions will soon be in effect, and should help.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Justice which relates to the so-called blood bombing. In view of the radio story this morning that Mr. Cowlishaw is going to 

return to Ottawa to visit us if something is not done, and thinking of the welfare of the members concerned, I wonder whether the government is contemplating any investigation of Mr. Macdonald's claim to ascertain whether it has any validity.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I may answer yes to that question at the moment.


Mr. Knowles:: Be it on your own head if you don't.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very distinct success of the ombudsman in New Zealand in handling complaints of this kind, does the government not think it is about time we gave serious thought to creating some similar office in Canada, so we would not have to have these complaints brought to our attention quite so dramatically?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as an individual at least I am ready to answer in the affirmative.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, despite the apparent closing of the door yesterday by the President of the Privy Council I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has received any representations from civil service staff associations asking for reconsideration of the matter of pay increases, in particular an interview with him, and whether an interview will be granted. Would he say at the same time that if such a meeting does take place and the arguments advanced are of a reasonable nature they will receive favourable consideration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, an interview has been requested in messages I have received this morning, and that will be arranged. I am always anxious to give sympathetic consideration to reasonable arguments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the difficulty which has arisen regarding the salaries of civil servants, may I ask the Prime Minister if the time is not appropriate for introducing legislation to provide for recognized collective bargaining rights for all public servants?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the government has arranged

for an examination to be conducted by Mr. Arnold Heeney into the whole question of collective negotiation inside the civil service. That examination is being proceeded with, and we hope to have a report on the results before long.


CANADIAN FLAG
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he has had any indication from the various representations which have come to him that there is a substantial body of opinion among people who are neither pro red ensign nor pro maple leaf, requesting him to shelve the flag debate and get on with other more important matters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had a great many communications expressing the hope that a decision will be reached on the flag question shortly, and then we can get on with other important business.


John George Diefenbaker: Any excuse is a valid alibi, I suppose.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question in connection with the answer which the Prime Minister gave the hon. member for Port Arthur. I want to ask the Prime Minister, if it appears that the flag debate is going to continue for a prolonged period of time, whether it would not seem advisable to convene the committees of the house so that we might make some use of the time we are here? None of the committees are working at the moment. If we are going to be tied up for the next month on the flag debate, it would seem that the committees ought to be convened so we can get on with some useful business during this hiatus.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand there is a meeting of one committee scheduled for next Tuesday. The hon. gentleman's suggestion that we might schedule meetings of other committees is one that certainly should be considered, so that while this debate is going on in its present form some useful work might be accomplished.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Would it not be advisable to give at least two full days per
Inquiries of the Ministry week to a discussion of the main estimates, which have been so seriously neglected by the government this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the work of the house will be announced to the house in due course from time to time. At the present moment nothing could be more important than to bring the present debate on the flag to a decision, this debate having already gone on for 15 days and no decision having been made on the subamendment or the amendment or the resolution.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: You asked everybody to talk.


Georges-J. Valade: May I ask
a supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that when we discussed the bill of rights the Liberal party spent a month obstructing that project?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the bill of rights debate was a very useful one. It only took a few days, and there was unanimous agreement. The bill was improved as a result of the amendments made by the opposition, and a decision was then taken. At the moment, Mr. Speaker, we have had 119 speeches on the flag and we are still on the subamendment to the amendment to the resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that the flag was not even mentioned in the speech from the throne, and it was not mentioned as one of the important matters the Prime Minister said required priority, does the Prime Minister not feel that some of these other things he has not got ready might be got ready and brought before the house so we would be able to do that which we should be carrying out, namely improving the economic condition of this country and doing something on behalf of trade, the statistics on which show a very serious situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On this matter I confess I share the frustration of the hon. member for Three Rivers and other members of the house. I do agree that it would be desirable if we could come to a decision on this matter. For that purpose, if my friend would only accept the arrangement proposed by the leaders of all the other parties, then a reasonable time limit could be agreed upon and we would be able to proceed with these matters to which he refers.


John George Diefenbaker: Speaking of frustration, has the right hon. gentleman read the very significant remarks of the hon. member for
7288	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry York-Humber that this flag which was brought before the house was never before the Liberal caucus, nobody knew about it and the Prime Minister just brought it in on his own?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I read those interesting remarks, and I read them in conjunction with the remarks of the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. During his peregrinations in western Canada about a month ago he stated that on the 25th of July there would be introduced in the house a measure to provide loans to groups of farmers to enable them to purchase farm machinery in the most economical manner. I would ask him whether the legislation has been drafted and a resolution has been prepared, and is this not something that might well go on the order paper if indeed, as he said, it is all ready?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, as I am just a barnyard boy sometimes I do not understand the right hon. gentleman's words.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harry William Hays: We do have a piece of legislation that will soon be ready to go on the order paper.


An hon. Member:: Soon?


Harry William Hays: The policy has been decided. We hope the matter will receive attention by the house and that we will get the legislation through soon, because the farmers need it.


John George Diefenbaker: So there will be no misunderstanding I say to the minister at once, put this resolution on the order paper and it will receive immediate attention, if he is so concerned about the farmers. Will you do that?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the right hon. gentleman has thrown a bit of a monkey wrench into this deal.


John George Diefenbaker: A monkey wrench into a non-existent resolution.


TURKEYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I have received many complaints from turkey raisers in Saskatchewan asking that the minister reimpose the quota system on turkeys coming in from the United States.


Mr. Winch:: You have got protection now. What more do you want?


Clarence Owen Cooper: My question is, would the minister consider reimposing the quota system on imports of turkeys from the United States?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, the turkey people are having a meeting, I think on September 14, at the Fort Garry in Winnipeg, and I shall be at that meeting to explain to these people why we do not feel we should impose these quotas at this time.


EXTENSION OF ARDA PROGRAM TO SAGUENAY REGION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry in his capacity as minister responsible for the administration of ARDA. Has he given consideration to the request I made recently to the effect that he should recommend to his officials responsible for the administration of ARDA to choose the Saguenay-Lake St. John area for their next survey of farm problems?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, this responsibility does not rest with the Minister of Forestry but with the minister of agriculture for the province of Quebec.


REDISTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Assuming that when we get to other important business one of the early items might be a resumption of the discussion of the legislation regarding redistribution, I wonder if the minister would

consider convening an informal conference of representatives of all parties, similar to the one he convened before we ever started the redistribution debate, to see if we might come to some understanding and avoid another protracted debate on that important subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is an excellent idea. If I had any indication at all that the representatives of the parties would be willing to come to such a conference with an open mind, with a view to overcoming the impasse we reached on that bill and which resulted in another protracted debate, I would be very happy to consider any reasonable proposal at all. I said so during the debate. If I had such an indication we would have such a meeting on Monday.


John George Diefenbaker: Nice co-operation again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. gentleman said there was nice co-operation between myself and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I only say, sir, I wish we could get the same co-operation from the right hon. gentleman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. As the remark suggested there was knowledge on the part of the minister that I was going to raise that question, let it be quite clear that I told no one I was going to ask that question.


John George Diefenbaker: Naturally I accept the two denials, and I expected the same course would be followed on this as on so many other matters in which that fine spirit of co-operation has been shown at all times.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am having a little difficulty trying to get the names of hon. members who wish to ask questions, and time is running out. The hon. member I have next on my list is the hon. member for Quebec East.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Since the opening of the C.B.C. television station in Quebec city has been announced for next month, can the minister assure us that, in the hiring of the staff, their qualifications being equal, preference will be given to candidates from Quebec city and vicinity rather than to those from outside?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is surely aware, that is the sole responsibility of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and I am convinced that, in carrying it out, the corporation will take into consideration the views expressed by the hon. member.
tText]


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Frontenac):: should like to direct my question to the Postmaster General. Will the minister indicate whether the distribution of the three maple leaf postage stamp is part of a campaign to promote and publicize the tri-leaf flag design?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am rather surprised that this question was not asked months ago. The three maple leaf design was decided upon in or about the month of July last year, long before the question of the flag ever came up.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister then undertake to see that ample stocks of Canadian stamps bearing the head of Queen Elizabeth are available at all times at post offices throughout Canada?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I gave that assurance at the time my estimates were before the committee. If the hon. member or any hon. member of this house can draw my attention to the fact that my direction is not being respected in any post office throughout the country, I will see to it that it is implemented.


Mr. Korchinski:: Is the Postmaster General now considering a single maple leaf design?


USE OF MAILS FOR DISSEMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION LITERATURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Is he prepared to take any action regarding the use of Canadian mail*

Inquiries of the Ministry for the dissemination of hate literature which originates in another country?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when a question of a similar nature was asked by the hon. member for York Centre some months ago I asked members of the house, if they had envelopes or containers which showed the addresses from which this literature was sent, to forward same to me, and I indicated we were prepared to take action. It will be recalled that at that time we did close the two known postal office boxes that were in use in Canada.
I might also say that, as a result of the injection into the mail stream of a number of brochures and letters very similar to those which originated from the Toronto address earlier, which latter ones emanated from Winnipeg and B.C., I sought the advice of the Department of Justice, and in late July I issued an interim prohibitory order refusing the use of the Canadian mails to the particular organization involved. If hon. members have any other envelopes or containers that carry the address of this organization, which I believe is the national white American party, we would consider taking similar action.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: As a
supplementary question, would the minister give consideration to making it compulsory for the return address to appear on all such distribution of mail?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I know my officials have discussed this with the Department of Justice as a possible course of action. I do not know whether this is one move that can be implemented, but I shall inquire and inform the hon. member later.


NON-PARTICIPATION BY CANADA IN GHANA FAIR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence, and in view of the fact that my question has a lot to do with the welfare of industry, maybe the Minister of Industry would care to answer it. Could the minister advise the house why Canada will not be an official exhibitor at the Ghana international trade fair next February, in view of the fact that some 31 other countries are going to participate?
(Mr. Walker.]


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: am not aware of the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, but I shall take it as notice.


THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Is the Prime Minister considering appointing the Associate Minister of National Defence to the national defence portfolio and, if this is the case, what will happen to the other minister? Will he be elevated to the other place?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the present minister is doing a remarkably good job-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and I am sure he will welcome the continuing assistance of the associate minister in that job.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister indicated to the house that the Minister of National Defence spoke for the government on matters concerning personnel. I would like very much to know just what the duties of the Associate Minister of National Defence are, if they do not include speaking for the government on personnel matters?


Lester Bowles Pearson: He has many duties. Indeed, he is much busier than his predecessor was in the previous government.


TELEGRAMS DEMANDING RESIGNATION OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr
Speaker, in order to prove that co-operation is not a one way or two way street may I, on behalf of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and myself, inform the house that the telegrams which he and I received this morning demanding our resignations from the House of Commons were not intended for him and me, but were copies of a telegram sent to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We started the question period at 2.25 and by virtue of the

recent standing order, temporary if you wish,
the half hour period ended at 2.57. It is now
just three o'clock.


CANADIAN FLAG
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, August 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. More.
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking at this time on the subamendment I think I would be remiss if I did not say a word or two in commendation of my colleagues for the many outstanding and patriotic addresses they have made in the house, and I think you will put up with me for a moment when I say many of us were so pleased last night that the hon. member for Huron made such an outstanding address. I believe he is the oldest member of the house in terms of age and the second oldest member of the house in terms of years of service.
I have no intention of speaking on the flag, but I do intend to speak on the subamendment which was moved by the hon. member for Regina City on August 13, and which is recorded at page 6806 of Hansard for that date. I think it would be only proper for us to refresh our minds by taking another look at the question he proposed at that time. The first one was, "Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign?" The second was, "Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritage of both founding races?" The third was, "Are you in favour of the three maple leaf design?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Alfred Irvine: The fourth was "Are you in favour of a one maple leaf design?" I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the action of hon. members on the other side in putting punctuation marks at the end of each of those sentences.
I think this proposal would give every Canadian an opportunity to exercise his freedom of choice, an opportunity to express his
Canadian Flag
opinion as to what we should have by way of a national flag. It was my privilege to address the house on July 2, at which time I spoke at great length on the subject of the flag. As a result I have received many letters. I have a file here which any member who wishes may examine; it contains some 200 or 300 letters on this subject sent to me between the date of that address and today. These letters are not all from people with Anglo-Saxon names, though there are, of course, a large number which bear such names. There are also a great many letters from people whose names indicate a French background. Then again, a great many of the names suggest a background which is neither Anglo-Saxon nor French. For example, I have had letters from people with names such as Steve Marti, G. W. Snetsinger, Mike Hillcoff, J. Melkonian, Janet Schaef, A. C. Petrouski, Dr. H. C. Soltan and Zudy Martinovic. I could mention further names, but one which comes to my mind immediately, because it is a name which was borne by a man who rendered signal service to this house, is the name Aberhart. So these people do not all come from one national background.
Many of these letters are interesting. I do not intend to read them all, and I know hon. members will be happy about that. At the same time I must direct the attention of the house to some of them. I have letters from as far away as Manitoba. Many are from Quebec. There are some from New York state, some from Michigan and one from a correspondent in England. Among all these letters there is only one in support of the proposed new flag, and I am thankful to say it did not come from within my riding. As I say, one of these letters came from England, and I should like to quote a small portion of it:
I was shocked to read recently In one of the daily papers here in England, that Canada was to have a new flag. A few days ago, I received a letter with a strange stamp on it, but it was a Canadian stamp. The sender of the letter informed me that the design of the stamp was that of the proposed new Canadian flag, which, the writer thought, was to become legal the following week.
As one of your supporters I am writing to protest very strongly against the proposed new flag.
I have another letter which came to me as recently as yesterday. I should like to quote a portion of it because I think it is important and would make a contribution to this debate. It comes from the city of London under date of August 21, and it says:
I did want to say thank you for your recent copy of 'House of Commons Debates' with the particular reference to your part played in this tremendous issue of the national flag.

Canadian Flag
I want to express my appreciation of the way in which the Conservative party have fought this issue. I cannot help but feel very proud of all that has transpired upon the floor of the house, not unmindful of the many hours the honourable members must have spent in meetings, sittings, etc.
It has been a very grave and grim summer for .all concerned, but little do we realize, so far from the actual scene of action, how wearying and, at times, discouraging, this all can be to the human mind and body.
Once again, my sincere thanks for a job well done. Whatever the outcome, whatever flag flies as our official national flag in the days to come, the Conservative party of Canada can well remember with honour this glorious summer of 1964.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Alfred Irvine: It is apparent that the words which have come from this House of Commons and gone out across the country are making an impression upon the people of this great nation of ours.
I should like to quote now from an article which was published in the London Free Press under date of May 23, 1964. It was written by Mr. Arthur R. Ford, who is editor emeritus of our paper in London. It is headed "Will New Flag Provide Unity?"
For my part I think it is a mistake nationally for a minority government to press this issue. Personally I think it will divide the country more than ever. I have a high regard for Mr. Pearson, for his achievements in his career as a Canadian diplomat. He has raised the status of Canada at the United Nations and in the international world.
Mr. Pearson, however, is asking a lot from Canadians of British or U.E. Loyalist stock to pull down the union jack, although most of us will accept it if it will put an end to the movement in Quebec for separatism, associate states and terrorism and bring about national unity, but I doubt whether the new flag or the new anthem will satisfy the Quebec extremists.
Most people in this part of Canada are prepared to go far, and to lean backwards, to meet fair and reasonable demands of French Canada. They earnestly want to join with them in building a greater Canada. They realize that the old Quebec is disappearing and that a new and modern [DOT]Quebec is rising. The University of Western Ontario, a number of years ago, led the way by establishing a summer school at Trois Pistoles to give students of the university an opportunity, not only to learn French, but to understand French Canada. In recent years there has been a movement in the schools to broaden the use of French.
There are certain principles, however, which they are not prepard to surrender. They want a continuation of the connection with Great Britain, through a common membership in the commonwealth of nations. They want to retain the monarchy with the Queen of Great Britain also the Queen of Canada. They want a retention of the British parliamentary system of government, which stands for the possession of those precious freedoms which we have long cherished-the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of association, the freedom of religion and .equal justice.

This is part of an article which was written by one of Canada's most outstanding writers, and I know it came directly from his heart.
Some time ago the Prime Minister said in this house, at the beginning of the flag debate, that everyone would have an opportunity to speak. In fact he urged that all members should get up and express themselves, and I believe it is the right and duty of every member to stand up and express himself on behalf of his constituents. This cannot be considered a filibuster. We received an invitation from the Prime Minister himself to stand up and speak on behalf of our constituents.
On May 25, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Peace River, we were given to understand that the debate would proceed without interruption and that every member would have a chance to speak. This can be seen by turning to page 3533 of Hansard. Now there is talk of limiting the debate to one week in which to decide something of great national importance whose results we shall have to live with for many years to come. As late as yesterday the Prime Minister made a statement in this chamber in answer to a question. He said:
I still think we should proceed along the course already indicated, and I do not like to think that there is total irreconcilability between positions.
But by his very words, Mr. Speaker, he did admit that there was division. These are some of the things to which I think we should be giving serious thought now. We know there is great division throughout this entire country, perhaps more division than we have ever had in our whole history.
I know the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre referred last night to the article in the Toronto Telegram of August 22, 1964. He quoted one part of it. As a result of his quotation I went through this article, and I believe there are two or three more points that should be brought to the attention of this house and I hope ultimately to the attention of the people throughout this great country of which we are privileged to be citizens. This article goes on to say that the vote cannot be free. It says it is impossible for a vote to be free under these circumstances. Then the article says:
At this stage, with party lines hardened, it is difficult to conceive of a truly free vote.
Having shown, belatedly, a willingness to retreat from his earlier stubborn demands for the banner of his choice, he now should go one step further and measure public sentiment by plebiscite.
Perhaps Mr. Pearson fears the outcome of such a testing of public opinion. Letters and petitions

expressing determination to retain the ensign have been impressive.
There is no reason why this obstructive and divisive bill should not be shelved pending a reference to the people. There is no urgency. Most Canadians outside Quebec appear to be quite satisfied with the flag we have now. In Quebec, the matter is of little importance as there they fly the Laurentian flag with its white cross and fleurs-de-lis.
Until Mr. Pearson softens his stand, the opposition is justified in continuing a modified filibuster.
Regardless of what they may call it, they say they feel we are justified in the stand we have taken; and I think this is the general opinion of Canadians across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Alfred Irvine: This article continues:
As distasteful as such devices are in parliament, no other method seems practical in the face of Mr. Pearson's stubbornness.
The way out of the parliamentary impasse is clear; a plebiscite to end the long debate and to allow parliament to get on with more important legislation.
This is the way the people across this country of ours are feeling. I would admit that perhaps three or four weeks ago there was a slightly different feeling; but today, with the number of letters I am receiving in my office and the number of letters I know many other hon. members are receiving, the general idea is "Don't give up the ship. Keep fighting. You are doing a good job". I received word just the other day that the city of London has recently ordered its flag requirements for the next five years. The flag they ordered was the Canadian red ensign.
We could go on at great length, Mr. Speaker, to test the pulse of the people of Canada at the present moment. In the Ottawa Citizen of August 22, last Saturday, there appeared an article on the subject of the flag. I would like to quote one small paragraph that says:
And if the Prime Minister is retreating from the three-leaf flag, the three-leaf flag would appear to have little chance of ever being run up the parliamentary flagpole.
What weakened Mr. Pearson's position?
Further down it says this:
The red ensign is now stronger than ever.
If not above the battle, it at least flew over the battlefield-and its position seems considerably stronger at summer's end than it was at the beginning.
Mr. Pearson is ready to throw the design of a new flag back into committee-a far cry from hopes that it would be flying by July 1, or for the royal visit in October.
Then we have the Ottawa Journal of August 20, last Thursday. I could go on at great length with these quotations, Mr. Canadian Flag
Speaker. Many quotations have been given to the house, but these quotations have not been referred to. In this article appearing in the Ottawa Journal it says-and this shows the difficulty that is confronting the Liberal front benchers-
When the caucus met Tuesday, the Prime Minister missed the assault by the backbench on the cabinet because he was chairing that conclave of the party leaders seeking the elusive negotiated peace in the flag war.
There is an indication that the apple in the bottom of the barrel has gone bad; and we know what happens to the whole barrel as the result of something like that. I know many hon. members of this house have read these articles, and some hon. members on the other side of the house must be very much concerned about this whole question. The feeling is there, and that feeling is growing day by day. And we talk about a free vote. How could there possibly be a free vote? Many hon. members on the other side of the house have already declared their intentions; they have gone to the point where they just cannot go back. In some cases they have told their constituents how they stand. I know, from speaking with some of them personally, that they would like to make an about face now, but how can they do it?
What about the Secretary of State for External Affairs? I think he has passed the point of no return. A recent public opinion poll carried on in Windsor indicated a majority support for the red ensign. What will the minister do now? What is going to happen to him? It is not that I am too concerned personally, but as a minister he may be bound to the Pearson pennant alliance to a point from which he cannot retreat. Which way will he jump? We know he is pretty adept at jumping, but we do not know which way he is going to jump. I'll bet he is somewhat concerned at the moment.
Some of the other things that have come out in the way of propaganda sometimes make one wonder why we do not have a minister of propaganda in this house. They talk about the cost of keeping the house open. I believe that recently-I may be wrong, and if I am I stand to be corrected-the secretarial staff were told they would be employed throughout any recess we might have. Every member gets his pay whether he is here or not. What is the expense of keeping this house open? We have many visitors here in the summer; we have to keep it open for them to come in. Perhaps there is the cost of printing Hansard, Votes and Proceedings and things of that type. But we have no

Canadian Flag
business before the house at the present time, and the time we are now taking, as good Canadians is for the purpose of standing up in this house and fighting for these things we think are right. We are using our holiday time, or our recess time, for that purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Alfred Irvine: It is interesting to hear the questions across the floor of this house. I am not too sure that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition may not be perhaps a little closer to a compromise than we all expect. Wouldn't it be nice if, as Canadians, we could just sit down together and work this thing out and come to a solution that would be satisfactory to everybody? But we cannot do it that way. The only recourse we have is a plebiscite.
I say these things, Mr. Speaker, as a member seeking only to further unity, national unity. It is my hope that they will come together and in some way establish an allparty committee which would select a flag which would be of truly non-partisan design.
The subject which is before us is the subamendment. It is my opinion that we should have a plebiscite, Mr. Speaker. However, let me go a little further and ask: Should we have a plebiscite now? To this question I would answer no. I would say, let us file away until the next election, which may not be too far off, this whole contentious issue, which is upsetting the country and causing so much division among the people. Then at that time let us have a plebiscite on this matter. If we were to have a plebiscite now we would have to put the whole of our election machinery into action. Through enumerators, we would have to prepare voters lists and employ all those people and services which are necessary in order to hold a plebiscite. This would cost just about as much as a general election and would be a waste of $15 million. There is no reason why this matter cannot be filed away and left aside until such time as we have an election. Then we could have the plebiscite, whether it be in November or March or a year hence. In the meantime let us get together as good Canadians should, and make sure that this parliament works in the best interests of the people in the Dominion of Canada. In this way we can kill two birds with one stone as well as save ourselves some money.
By approaching the subject in this way we will provide three opportunities to the people of Canada. First of all, we will give them a chance to simmer down and think about the matter a little less passionately

than they are thinking about it at the moment. It would give them an opportunity to think clearly. The people are mad, and they are mad because they may be losing their red ensign. They are mad about that, and the great waves of protest are growing daily. We are not afraid of having a plebiscite because we know what the answer will be.
In addition, we will save $15 million. I think it was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) who said "What's a hundred million?", and we know he was being facetious. But $15 million is a lot of money, and we should have it if we can.
The most important thing we shall be giving the people is this. We will be giving them the opportunity of exercising their freedom of choice. We cannot let down now. We must carry on. The only alternative for us if we bow down and accept the flag which has been presented by one person is, in essence, to let the people of the country down and give in to what is almost a virtual dictatorship.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate for the second time. I do so only because the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), for one, made in my opinion a rather provocative speech and I thought it only appropriate to answer him today. Second, the subamendment before us should be given serious consideration by the government. It is quite obvious that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is not interested in considering anything but the original or initial resolution, but it is with the hope that he will reconsider the matter that I take part once more in this debate. I also want to deal with some of the recommendations made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) whose speech a few days ago could well be considered one of the better ones delivered in this house for a long time.
I might just say that I am very interested to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), a fellow Albertan from the city of Calgary, in his seat today. I welcome him back. It is of course my hope that he will participate in this debate during the course of this afternoon because I know how some of the people of Calgary feel about this question. I should also like to know how the minister himself feels. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it appears at the moment as if our country is getting along on its own in spite of parliament rather than because of it. Again I plead with the Prime Minister to give this matter serious consideration, or if you like reconsideration.

When one looks at the subamendment introduced by the hon. member lor Regina City (Mr. More) he finds it poses four questions, namely: Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign? Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign modified? Are you in favour of the three maple leaves design? Are you in favour of a one maple leaf design? What possible objection could the Prime Minister see to a plebiscite on this question during some future election? What he would in fact be doing is allowing those people, and there are many of them, who have not communicated with their members of parliament either by petition or letter or telephone, and who feel strongly with respect to the questions involved in the subamendment, to express their viewpoints on the subject. What is more fair, Mr. Speaker, than to give these people the opportunity to mark an X against the appropriate question during an election? It would then give the red ensigners the opportunity to express their point of view. It would give those who feel strongly about the red ensign but would be quite willing to accept a slight modification to express their point of view. Then again it would allow those who are in favour of either one of the two other designs to express their point of view as well. What could be more fair than that, Mr. Speaker? I do not understand the Prime Minister's reticence with regard to action on this matter.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle suggested, as an alternative: Why not refer the matter to a parliamentary committee? Although I think this would be my second preference, I see nothing wrong with turning the question over to a parliamentary committee composed of an equal number of members from the two largest parties in the House of Commons, and members from the other parties in the house.
I suggest there are approximately 3,500 designs in the possession of the government at the moment. Surely the committee could study these designs, select half a dozen and then unanimously decide on one design out of the half dozen they have chosen from the 3,500. If it is insisted that a time limit should be imposed on the committee, then I say that to my mind this is not workable and will not work. I think the committee should be instructed to sit for a given number of days, and it might be a year or two years before a final report is received by the house. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) laughs. I think this is a very reasonable alternative to what the Prime Minister has proposed. Hon. members know what his proposal is. He proposes to shove it down people's throats.
20220-461i
Canadian Flag


Mr. Godin:: Why not ten years?


William Skoreyko: I did not hear the comment.


Osias.-J. Godin: Why not ten years?


William Skoreyko: I see nothing wrong with ten years if that is how long it takes the committee to decide. At least there would be one consolation. The people of Canada would be united when a final decision was made. You will not unite this country by forcing a flag down the throats of the Canadian people.
Let us talk about the resolution. I have more regard for relevancy than the Minister of Trade and Commerce had when he spoke on this subject, and it is my hope that when the Minister of Agriculture rises to participate in the debate he will also be relevant. Since the introduction of the resolution letters have been written to members of parliament including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Prime Minister (Mr.. Pearson) and all the cabinet ministers. Polls have been conducted by various groups, organizations and newspapers. Petitions have been signed with thousands of signatures on them. Some have been sent to the Prime Minister and some to the respective members of parliament. On many occasions inside and outside the House of Commons speeches have been made on the merits, pros and cons of a flag.
I want to deal with some of the polls that have been conducted throughout the country since the resolution was introduced. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, and you will probably find it as interesting as I do, that in one recent survey conducted by a well known international magazine the city of Edmonton had the greatest percentage per 1,000 telephone calls in support of the red ensign of any city in Canada. Edmonton is a cosmopolitan city like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, and the suggestion that certain ethnic groups, people of certain racial backgrounds, support or do not support either of the flag proposals before the house is wrong. People generally in the city of Edmonton, and I know this applies to Calgary also, are predominantly red ensign supporters.
I refer now to a survey that was conducted by the Edmonton Journal early in May of this year. The Journal polled residents of the city of Edmonton and district on whether or not they were in favour of the red ensign and after about a week these were the results. A total of 1,636 ballots were cast in favour of the red ensign compared with 862 in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag, and

Canadian Flag
a large number of people simply said it did not matter to them at all.


Osias.-J. Godin: Would the hon. member give us the question that was asked?


William Skoreyko: I will be very glad to deal with that.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Skoreyko: I am still on my feet, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) I am trying to find the question that was asked in the poll but I do not seem to have it in front of me at the moment.


Osias.-J. Godin: I asked that question because from the remarks of the hon. member I understood that the question was, "Are you in favour of the red ensign". In my opinion that question alone would not elicit the type of answer that would give a proper indication of the opinion of the people.


William Skoreyko: I have just arranged to have my office called-


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, it is not-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Edmonton East has the floor.


William Skoreyko: I know that the hon. member for Nickel Belt is jealous. He wants to support the Prime Minister whether he is right or wrong, and I do not blame him for inquiring-


Osias.-J. Godin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not think any member should refer to another member of the house as doing something, right or wrong, on the basis of partiality. I have had occasion to make a speech in the house on this matter-


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Nickel Belt is rising on a question of privilege and perhaps the hon. member for Edmonton East will give him an opportunity to state his point.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I was drawing the attention of the house to the fact that no member of parliament should indicate that another member is doing something on the basis of partiality, which was the intent of the remarks of the hon. member. I had occasion to make a speech in the house on the matter of the flag and it is unfortunate that the hon. member was not present to hear it.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has muddied up his question of privilege so that now no one understands it.

I did not accuse the hon. and learned gentleman of being right or wrong with respect to the resolution. I said he was supporting the Prime Minister and he did not care whether the Prime Minister was right or wrong. I did not accuse the hon. member of doing anything-


Osias.-J. Godin: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I insist that the remarks of the hon. member indicate that some members of this house-it happens to be me on this occasion-are doing something on the basis of partiality. The hon. member says that no matter if the Prime Minister is right or wrong I will support him. I support the Prime Minister because what he has done is good for Canada.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I can understand the feelings of the hon. member for Nickel Belt but I really do not think it is unparliamentary to suggest that an hon. member is either voting or speaking because of partiality. I would suspect that many speeches made in the house are inspired by that feeling. I do not really think the hon. member has said anything up to now that is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.


William Skoreyko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel very badly that the hon. member should consider my remarks offensive. I understand his blind desire to defend the Prime Minister's actions, whether he is right or wrong. I say that he is wrong and I intend to prove that before I conclude my remarks, if the hon. member will permit me to continue.
As I pointed out, the Edmonton Journal conducted a survey by ballot, and the ballots will be delivered to my desk in a few minutes, I hope. The readers were asked to sign their ballots as evidence of their good faith, but the names would not be recorded on the ballots themselves, which would go forward to a distant point for tabulating. The results would be published as the reports were compiled. I have already put some of the reports on the record, Mr. Speaker. I was more than amazed that the city of Edmonton would respond so overwhelmingly in support of the ensign.


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


William Skoreyko: I would grant the hon. member that courtesy if he would promise me he would get up and make a speech on the

flag issue after I have listened to his question.


Osias.-J. Godin: It seems to me it is the privilege of this house, if an hon. member purports to give evidence which will convince any hon. member of this house of one thing or another, to ask the hon. member to inform the house properly of the facts behind the evidence he is producing. This is what hon. members are now asking. We should have the privilege of knowing the facts behind the evidence which he is producing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not believe the point of order or question of privilege is well taken. It seems to me this is a question of debate. If the hon. member feels the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton East cannot be substantiated, he can say so in reply to the speech made by the hon. member.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege. I would call Your Honour's attention to the wording of the statement on the prior question of privilege. The hon. member used the words, "if the member has any evidence to convince any member in this chamber". The hon. member has evidence that will convince me and many members on this side, therefore his statement in reference to any member does not hold water and there is no question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We cannot permit a debate on the point.


William Skoreyko: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the results of the survey taken by the Edmonton Journal were indeed impressive. A month or two after the original survey in May, another survey was taken. By this time the article to which I am referring, dated June 26, had been written. It is entitled "Two out of three favour red ensign" and deals with the question on a national basis, with the exception of the province of Quebec. I should like to read one paragraph from this news article because I think hon. members from the city of Toronto would find it very interesting indeed. Before I do, I may say that the city of Edmonton survey shows that two of three Journal readers favour the red ensign as Canada's national flag. Toronto has plumped most heavily for the ensign, with Telegram readers casting 7,865 ballots for it and 1,839 for the Pearson flag. I am just wondering how the members from the city of Toronto, 18 of them in all, feel when they sit on their hands in the House of Commons without expressing a point of view.
Canadian Flag


An hon. Member:: One did.


William Skoreyko: Yes, and I dare say hon. members across the house wish he had never opened his mouth.
There is another comment in an Ottawa report by Patrick Nicholson dated August 21, a few days ago. I am still dealing with the poll that was started originally in the city of Edmonton by the Edmonton Journal. This article says:
It quickly became obvious that "Mike's maple" had attracted overwhelming support among French Canadians, while the lukewarm enthusiasm for it elsewhere was gravely tempered by the resentment, as some M.P.'s expressed it, that this was "yet another concession to French Canada".
I want to deal with the aspect of this remark because, as a political party, we have been accused of using the words "massive concessions". I want to assure you that of all the speeches I have read, one man used those words and used them deliberately, and that was the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp).
I continue to quote from the article:
The lopsidedness of cross-Canada sentiment on the flag issue has just been revealed by a nationwide poll, whose sensational results were given front page prominence in Ottawa's thoughtful French language newspaper, Le Droit.
This poll discovered that a majority of Canadians, in every province except Quebec, prefer the Canadian ensign to the maple leaf design. It also ascertained that about one third of all Canadians would prefer some other flag, such as the union jack or another design, or were ignorant or indifferent about the whole issue.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) looks at me as though he were familiar with the article and wished me to quote another paragraph. If he asks me to do so, I will.


Osias.-J. Godin: I would prefer to hear your views.


William Skoreyko: Why will the Prime Minister not consider the modification of the red ensign? Why will he not consider an alternative? I suppose, to be fair, one ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I must ask this pertinent question-


Maurice John Moreau: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening with a great deal of attention to the hon. member's remarks and I have not raised a point of order dealing with the relevance of his remarks to the subamendment. However, in view of the fact the hon. member has spoken on the resolution, I feel his remarks referring to some loaded newspaper poll are not relevant to the subamendment and I would ask Your

Canadian Flag
Honour to bring him to the point now before the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton East indicated at the start of his speech he intended to be relevant to the subamendment. He did say that his remarks were [DOT]to be relevant to the plebiscite question. I assume that the quotation he just read a moment ago will make some reference to the question of the plebiscite and the subamendment.


William Skoreyko: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We seem to be having a number of interruptions in the house this afternoon, with foghorns, and the hon. member down in the corner who is determined I am not going to be able to send this speech out to my constituents for their benefit.
I said earlier that I wanted to know why the Prime Minister would not consider a modification of the red ensign, or an alternative design? I want to ask a number of questions in this regard. He has refused to consider a plebiscite. He has given what amounts to a refusal to consider the feasibility of a committee to study the flag question, and by refusal I mean he has insisted that a time limit must be imposed on hon. members if and when the committee reports to the house.
I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, that over the years the changes in the rules of the house have been of a nature such as to tend to curtail the amount of time a private member has to express his opinion, and I find most objectionable any suggestion that there should be further curtailment of the time of a private member. I can understand the hon. member sitting in the back row who has contributed very little, if anything, to this debate, and he has not suggested that he will. I am looking forward to reading his remarks when he makes them.


Maurice John Moreau: On a point of privilege, I would like to inform the house that I intend to speak on the main resolution, if we ever get back to it.


William Skoreyko: That is not a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, but it is a neat trick if he can get away with it-get back to the resolution so that the government has a free hand.


Osias.-J. Godin: Let us vote on the amendment if you want to hear him.


William Skoreyko: The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) was complaining about this

being my second contribution to the debate, but I have not yet heard his contribution.


Osias.-J. Godin: On a point of privilege, I made no reference, but the unfortunate position is that his second contribution is no better than his first.


William Skoreyko: Neither are his interruptions. These are the four questions I want to ask the Prime Minister: Is he not proud of the union jack? Is this why he wants to get rid of the red ensign, because it has a small union jack in the corner? Is he not proud of it? If he is not, why is he not? The state of Hawaii has the union jack on its flag. The people there are very proud of it and they refuse to accept any other design, despite the fact that there is not any country in the world more proud of its flag than the United States, or any part of the United States.
How can the Prime Minister justify shoving down the throats of Canadians a flag that does not have a cross on it? These are the three questions I would like to ask the Prime Minister. I talked a moment ago about the pride which Hawaii has in its flag, and in that connection here is an interesting clipping from the Edmonton Journal:
Thousands oi Albertans who have visited Hawaii must have seen widely displayed there a flag incorporating the union jack.
It is, of course, the state flag of Hawaii: a union jack in the upper corner next to the staff and eight vertical stripes, three white, three red and two blue.


Maurice John Moreau: What about the subamendment?


An hon. Member:: Why the hell don't you get up and speak?


William Skoreyko: I hear a chirp from the backwoods. I cannot identify the member because he will not stand. He has no guts. The article goes on to say:
No nation treats its flag with more reverence than does the United States, and no state is prouder to be part of the U.S. than is Hawaii. Nevertheless, the incorpration of the union jack in the state flag of this "melting pot" of nationalities suggests that Hawaii does not wish to forget the British role in its history.
What was that British role in Hawaii's history? Captain James Cook, the English navigator, discovered the islands in 1778, and if it had not been for the attitude of the British parliament Hawaii would still be a colony or a holding of the British empire. The article goes on to say:
It would be preposterous to charge that Prime Minister Pearson is not proud of the union jack.

I posed that question a moment ago, but I
had very little or no response.
But has he been unduly Influenced by men who irrationally and perversely oppose the incorporation of the union jack in Canada's national flag? Certainly there is no national symbol anywhere that can rightfully evoke greater pride and reverence.
Will the day come when the shortest trip Albertans can take to see the union jack proudly waving in the breeze will be Hawaii?
I ask the Prime Minister, what are his reasons? Is it that as a Britisher himself he dislikes the union jack? Why doesn't the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) get up and answer?


Osias.-J. Godin: On a point of order, so that the house may understand the meaning of the remarks of the hon. member would he indicate is he suggesting-


William Skoreyko: I have not yielded the floor.


Osias.-J. Godin: -that this parliament should adopt the flag of Hawaii?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Is the hon. gentleman rising to ask a question or on a point of order?


Osias.-J. Godin: On a point of order. So that the house be properly informed I would like the hon. member to indicate if he wishes this parliament to adopt the flag of Hawaii?


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, the hon. member rose and interrupted the speaker on what he said was a question, and the Chair sat and allowed him to proceed with his remarks, and then suggested the hon. member was rising on a point of order and gave him recognition. It is time he was put in order when he gets up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I did not
at first hear the remarks made by the hon. gentleman. If he rose and posed his question to the hon. member who was speaking, without the consent of that member, then he was out of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then why wasn't he ruled out?


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, you have been more than generous in the half hour I have been on my feet. I have been trying to explain to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin), and in very plain common language, what it is I am talking about, and he does not understand. I said I was posing four questions to the Prime Minister. Is he not proud of the union jack? Why should he be ashamed of it? Can he justify stuffing down
Canadian Flag
the throats of Canadians a flag that does not have a cross on it?
In talking about the true meaning of the union jack to people of British ancestry, who have been connected with it for generations, I want to make brief reference to a newspaper article which is headed, "That Leafy Flag Repudiates the Cross," and I shall quote a few short paragraphs from it.
The article is by Frank Chubb, minister of St. Stephen's United church, Edmonton, and I think the quotation will be very relevant indeed. I am quoting it for the benefit of the hon. member who spent the last half hour interrupting me and who has finally left the chamber.
It would be hard to conceive of a greater affront to us as a Christian nation than that of being informed arbitrarily that the cross must be removed from our flag.
I suggest this is precisely what is happening now as a result of an action taken arbitrarily without consultation either in caucus or in cabinet. As I pointed out in the course of my last speech, the article by Val Sears obviously had some significance because of the objections which were raised. This flag design was born over a bottle of scotch and soda. Now I can understand why they want to leave the cross out of it. The article goes on to say:
If it symbolizes anything, the flag represents what the nation stands for. Has the idea of sacrificing for the good of others now become so unpalatable to us as a people that the cross must come out of our flag?
If so, the prospects for our future as a nation have reached an all time low.
These are the views of a minister of an influential religious body in Canada. May I say, for the benefit of hon. members opposite, that I do not intend to quote at length. I just want to put on record one other passage from this article. This is what the writer says about the significance of the cross:
We Canadians had preserved this rich heritage in the comer of the red ensign, the flag adopted by the Canadian government and people in 1945.
Now Mr. Pearson says it must go.
He seems to believe that three leaves off an eastern Canadian tree are more than adequate as a substitute for the three great crosses on our flag.
Along with the crosses must go the coat of arms we requested from His Majesty King George V a scant 43 years ago.
What a tribute to infidelity and fickleness.
Certainly it is time for Canada to take on individuality and responsibility as a nation, but must a child disown its parents in order to achieve healthy maturity?
I should think that the opposite is the case!
The Canadian coat of arms on the red ensign traces our heritage back to 1,100 years before the

Canadian Flag
birth of Christ. A Canadian worth his salt should be able to feel a bit of a thrill as he sees outlined against the sky these symbols of the glory from which he has sprung.
When someone pretending to "lead" the people of Canada suggests that we repudiate the cross and reject our heritage, when all he can offer in return is a handful of leaves, the time is ripe not merely for dissent, but for revolution.
These are strong words. These are strong feelings expressed by a man of the faith.
I now wish to deal for a few moments with a speech which was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). I do not want you to remind me about relevancy, Mr. Speaker, because I intend to be as relevant as the man to whom I am making reference at the moment, and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not as politically blind and partisan, with the attitude of a bureaucrat-


An hon. Member:: Oh.


William Skoreyko: He did, you must agree, refuse to fulfil his responsibilities as a deputy minister because of political partisanship. He resigned not only because he could not get along with his staff but because his staff did not particularly care for him. The only way in which he could vindicate his honour was to get elected to this parliament where he could again display his bureaucratic arrogance. But he is not going to get away with it.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce made a speech to this house on the subamendment and his total disregard for relevancy only indicated to me that he is completely ignorant of the moral, political, cultural and historic aspects of the question involved. He showed no concern about any of these aspects. His concern was merely: How best do I advance the Liberal party?


Mr. Dupuis:: Out of order completely.


An hon. Member:: What, the Liberal party?


William Skoreyko: The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that while Quebec Conservatives sat on their hands-or, rather, I will quote from the article before me. It says:
While Quebec Conservatives sat on their hands, Mr. Sharp asked the opposition lor the source of Mr. Diefenbaker's idea to modify the red ensign by the inclusion of a fleur-de-lis. He called it "a clumsy and gratuitous piece of appeasement- a bone thrown out to a troublesome minority."
These are his own words. Neither the Conservative party in this house nor any member of that party has ever used in reference to the French speaking Canadians of this

country, the words "troublesome minority". The words were uttered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and they are disgusting for a minister of the crown to use with that bureaucratic attitude of his.
As I was going through some of the interesting clippings I have in my possession I noticed another article bringing to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the fact that he would not be able to get away with this partisan political attitude of his. This newspaper article reminds him that the arrogance of the Liberals helped to defeat them in 1957. Mr. Sharp, it says, revealed that it is one of the best Conservative assets today. How right he is.
In conclusion, I want to deal with one or two other aspects of this subject. I want to deal with the question of copyright as it affects the new flag. If the Prime Minister were to agree to a referendum, would parliament have the right to turn this matter over to the returning officers and ask them to include this design on the ballot during an election before the copyright has been cleared? I ask this because there was an article which appeared in the press very recently which I found most interesting, although I do not agree with some of the views which were expressed. The writer, Mr. Charles Lynch, said:
One of the unresolved problems confronting the government over the maple leaf flag is getting the design copyrighted.
When Prime Minister Pearson sent to the patent and copyright division here last week to find how many maple leaf copyrights there were he was told that 327 commercial firms hold a copyright on the maple leaf and 24 others have a copyright on three leaves.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the course of action that would have to be taken by the federal government would be tantamount to the expropriation of a copyright. If this were the course of action taken in fact, I suppose that attitude on the part of the government would be no different from the attitude of the government in any "red" country, if you like.
It is not too many months ago, sir, that I read an article dealing with brand names and copyrights and how the cancellation of these copyrights affects business. My wife probably buys the majority of her meats and meat products from Canada Packers under the "Maple Leaf" label, but I am wondering if she could tell me who manufactures that particular brand. This was the concern of the advertising people, that literally thousands of women buy, not only food, not only

clothing but all sorts of household commodities daily and identify the product by the copyrighted name. The minister is looking at me; I see that he agrees with me wholeheartedly. What, then, happens to Canada Packers copyright; a name they have maintained with a degree of dignity for years and years-"Canada Packers Maple Leaf" products?


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


Some hon. Members:: That's enough.


William Skoreyko: If I may rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure there would be no objection to allowing me to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, yes there is.


William Skoreyko: I had prepared notes sufficient for the alloted time. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, with due deference, that had it not been for the interjections of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) and a number of others, I would have had adequate time to complete my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I recognize the objection which the hon. member raises, but I am sure he will recognize that if he accepts a question, he accepts the question on his own time. On the other hand, if he is interrupted a number of times during his remarks, some allowance should be made for that time. The hon. gentleman's time was up eight minutes ago and I have given him that extra time because I was advised by the Deputy Speaker when I came to the chair that a number of interruptions had been made. I believe I have made a fair allowance for the interruptions which were made during the hon. member's remarks.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am raising a point of
order with regard to your statement, Mr. Speaker, that a member accepting a question accepts it on his own time. We will have to be protected by Mr. Speaker in this regard, because yesterday I did not accept questions from the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Mathe-son), but he persisted in making a statement and was permitted to do so. So if we are to have questions accepted and taken out of our time for speaking, we will require the protection of the Chair with regard to interruptions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I am
sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who is as well or better acquainted with the rules than I am,
Canadian Flag
will agree that if a question is asked of an hon. member who is making a speech, he has the right to accept or reject the question. I would say to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that my own opinion in this regard is that if any hon. member wishes to ask a question of a member who is speaking, the member who is speaking has the right to accept or reject that question. I feel that no question should be asked until the member speaking has given his consent or otherwise. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret).


Mr. Maurice Rinfret (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, since mid-


Mr. Nasserden:: On the point of order that was raised, Mr. Speaker, I think it is also the accepted practice that a member should ask his question after the member who has the floor has completed his remarks; and this practice has not been observed by members on the other side of the house.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, as regards the point of order, I should like to remind the hon. member who has just spoken that should his suggestion not to allow any member to direct questions to the member who is speaking be applied, his own leader would never be able to speak in this house, as he is always asking questions of other members right in the middle of a debate.


Robert Simpson: Whom did you get that from- Pick?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think it is the general practice of the house when a member is speaking for another member to ask a question; but it is still up to the member who is speaking to decide whether he will or will not accept the question. If the member who is speaking decides he is not going to accept the question, the member seeking to ask the question has no right to persist. The hon. member for St. James. [Translation]


Mr. Rinfrei:: This house has been discussing since the middle of June the resolution introduced by the government, for the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag.
As early as January 27, 1960, when he was leader of the opposition, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) stated clearly the position of the Liberal party on this flag question. At that time, he proposed

Canadian Flag
to the then Conservative government to put before parliament legislation which, and I quote:
-if it were adopted by the representatives of the people, would settle the Issue of our national flag; parliament would then agree to adopt a distinctive flag which, unlike the red ensign to which parliament has never given official recognition, could not be mistaken for the flag of the United Kingdom or some colonies and could be easily identified as the Canadian flag.
Is it not consistent that now that he has become the leader of the Canadian government, the right hon. Prime Minister should propose a resolution in order to give Canada a distinctive national flag?
Like many other members, the right hon. Prime Minister received a number of letters from people complaining about measures that might be taken to replace the red ensign. The Prime Minister answered to those bona fide correspondents that he wanted to assure them of his unqualified respect for the union jack and the red ensign and for all they represent of our history and traditions as symbols of freedom and democracy. Nevertheless, it is time that Canada should be given a distinctive flag which would have the top position on the mast.
Canada has been waiting for a flag long enough. I am both happy and proud to see that the government has now seen fit to take steps in that direction. Our confederation will soon be a hundred years old. Discussions on the flag have been going on for years, right from the very beginning of our confederation, and until now it has always seemed that no agreement was possible. Will any further delay in finally adopting a national flag make for better understanding?
With the coming of the centennial and the world fair, there are other reasons besides the basic ones for adopting a distinctive flag now. There is the matter of convenience which should not be minimized.
Indeed, it is inconceivable that this country could welcome millions of visitors to those great events without being able to fly a flag unmistakably its own.
Since every country has its flag, why should Canada be an exception? The flag is actually a factor of national unity, in peacetime as well as in wartime. If other proposed flags are controversial, it is all the more necessary to cast them aside and start anew with a new emblem.
Now, the other flags mentioned, which were not approved officially but only tolerated, give rise to controversy. Therefore, they should be discarded as distinctive flags. As a country,

Canada takes part in all important international conferences. It is a middle power, but with bright prospects for future development in every respect. And such a country would be without a distinctive flag? You will admit that this is paradoxical.
Former generations were cautious on this subject. They did not jeopardize the future. The government is now convinced that Canada should have its own flag and it gives praise to the previous leaders who, in their wisdom, refrained from tying its hands in this connection.
The time has come for Canada to choose a permanent distinctive flag that will be kept by future generations since it will have been given a "clear" and official status.
All the present differences will be forgotten if this house puts aside narrow considerations and sectional interests to take the proper decision which is quite simple, that of giving the country an emblem which will be respected both at home and abroad, an emblem that will confirm the good reputation our country enjoys throughout the world, as travellers back from Europe, Asia and Africa can testify.
It has been said that the flag issue was liable to create emotional rather than rational reactions. Mr. Speaker, if the flag issue can give rise to purely emotional reactions, it can also be objectively dealt with as any other problem. It is up to us, as members of parliament, to be rational. Now, to give the country a distinctive flag for reasons of convenience, especially to consolidate unity among Canadians, is not an emotional but a rational issue.
Regardless of the emblem selected, there will undoubtedly be few but vocal reactionaries and disgruntled people. It is not possible to satisfy everybody. Considering the information gathered by the members of the house as a whole and after thinking the matter over and listening to a debate which has been going on for several weeks, I am firmly convinced that the people of the ten provinces want a distinctive flag.
I think that an autonomous country such as Canada has been since the Statute of Westminster has to adopt a flag whose design will not be reminiscent of any other country. Why should the country's emblem include reminders of Canada's ties with England and not with France? On the other hand, if we were to adopt a flag representing the two former hegemonies, ' it would be necessary to load the flag with complicated symbols and it would still not satisfy anyone. It is better to eliminate the symbols recalling France or

England and thus not only prevent differences ot opinion from continuing unabated but also prevent the new flag from becoming unacceptable to new Canadians who make up a large percentage of our population.
Thus we would have a common flag for the whole population, a flag which would not perpetuate the old quarrels we want to forget, which is a great advantage. The inclusion of symbols representing the motherlands would only feed old grudges. The adoption of a distinctive flag seems to be the only sound way to put an end to useless discussions on that issue.
The three maple leaves, the central element of the proposed flag, seem a logical choice since they represent Canada. Many pages of our literature, in both French and English, are devoted to the maple leaf. They contain many references to the maple tree which is quite representative of our country not because it is exclusive to Canada but because, due to its profusion and beauty, its praises have been sung by Canadian poets and lyrics writers.
Hon. members should not prolong this debate unnecessarily by lengthy discussions of details. That is why I prefer to stick with a distinctive flag containing three maple leaves rather than risk embroiling matters and putting off the selection of a distinctive flag indefinitely.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said in the house, on June 30 last:
I believe Canada needs not only a distinctive flag but a distinctive Canadian spirit.
That distinctive spirit should be embodied in a flag whose judicial status is well established. It should represent all Canadians and, in my opinion, the three maple leaves flag should be the national flag of Canada and should prevail over all those which we had in the past.
The point here is not to please French Canadians any more than others, as suggested in certain narrow-minded political quarters. But if we take a look at history, we must admit that French Canadians have special reasons to favour the maple leaf flag, having been pioneers in the development of the west as well as the east, through their daring explorers and missionaries, laymen and clerics as well.
English speaking people of good will could not, any more than French Canadians, repudiate the distinctive flag proposed. Canada is the common country of the descendants of French and English pioneers. It has become gradually the country of immigrants of all nationalities who chose to come here 20220-462-J
Canadian Flag
to start a new life that had become impossible for them in their country of origin and gave Canada the best of their talents and industry. No one among those three groups should stand against the adoption of a flag which is long overdue. On the contrary, everyone should look forward with enthusiasm to the day when it will fly on high in the Canadian sky.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first intervention in the debate. I have had my name on the list of speakers for some time, but the list is long and it takes quite a while before one's name is reached. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. friend, the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), and I hope that the remarks I have to make although somewhat different, will be along the same lines of Canadianism that he has envisaged.
I have noticed that many members who have spoken in beginning their remarks have made personal references to their own backgrounds and the backgrounds of their constituencies, and I want to do the same. Many hon. members have referred to service in the first and second world wars and their association with the red ensign. I think I am one of the few, if not the only one in the house, who can say that my entire career at sea during the second world war, a very inauspicious career I might add, was spent serving under the red ensign. Those of us in the merchant navy, however, grew to honour and appreciate the old red duster.
For the record, I think hon. members will find that the red ensign was first officially used on British mercantile ships in 1707 and has been used ever since. The first instance in Canada of the use of the red ensign with the dominion badge or seal added was in 1892.
May I also refer to Saint John and make some brief remarks about this historic city. Many hon. members will, of course, associate Saint John with the Loyalists. We are very proud of our Loyalist tradition and it is becoming a greater source of pride every day. I think I should point out that for a considerable period of its history Saint John was under the French flag, a similar period to that when Annapolis Royal was under French rule, as referred to by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) the other day. Many people do not know this.
I recall that when a measure was introduced in the house in 1954 concerning historic sites the then minister of northern affairs, now premier of Quebec, did not realize this fact

Canadian Flag
and promised consideration when I mentioned that here was a very good example of two eras of colonial control in a city. The Fort LaTour period to which I am referring extended from 1631 to 1645 and it was the first major French outpost in New Brunswick. Prior to that time there were two earlier phases of Indian life. The story of the first English settlement on the Saint John river more than a century after the LaTour-D'Aulnay struggle between two rival French traders is recalled by the well known trading posts associated with the Simonds, Hazen and White period. Thus, at Portland point in Saint John are significant historical phases in the lives of three racial strains, Indians, French and English. Each has played an important role in the history of our province. When to these are added the famous Loyalist settlement one has a good idea of the different strains in our city and province.
I think it is important to understand why the Loyalists came to New Brunswick. They were a unique group comprising many well educated men and certainly men of great principle. Not nearly enough credit has been given in our history books to these gallant exiles. Some have suggested that had they found in their midst in the United States a true leader such as George Washington they might have remained there and brought about a different course of history. But they did not hesitate. They brought with them their valuable possessions, their education and culture, but above all else their love of a monarchical form of government. They were not interested in republicanism in any form. That is why in New Brunswick and Saint John we have such a pleasant mixture of culture from which many can take a lesson. We have a pleasant blend of American heritage with a true love for the crown, not a blind obedience but an appreciation of the monarchy as a better form of government than a republic.
It is important to define what one means by "imperialism" and I go to the work, "Canadians In The Making", by Professor A. R. M. Lower. On page 349 he states:
Canadian imperialism has never been simple: it can at one and the same time be bitterly contemptuous of Englishmen and warmly welcome the British connection. A newspaper in that most loyal of all Canadian cities, Saint John, could write, apropos of a book by an English traveller: "Canadians might never suspect how coarse, ignorant, conceited and, withal, amusing they are if talented Englishmen did not come out occasionally and write books about them." Imperialism was in its own way a kind of Canadian nationalism.
In supporting the subamendment put forward by Ihe hon. member for Regina City

(Mr. More) I want to say at the beginning that I feel a subject such as the flag should not have been brought up for debate in the house. I liken it to capital punishment. It is a very emotional subject. People take positions for different reasons and it is extremely difficult to get a truly free vote on such a subject. In addition, of course, bitter controversy enters the picture.
However, we are involved in a historic debate to which many good contributions have been made. I do not wish to single out any but I think that speeches both inside and outside the house have been worthy of commendation on all sides. I noticed that last night the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean), a good friend of mine, made a contribution to the debate, and I give him credit for doing so. I do not agree with his thoughts. I think it must have been extremely difficult for him to make that speech. He is a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, active in the boy scouts, a veteran of the first world war and is of Scottish ancestry. His riding is almost completely associated with the British tradition. Yet he came out in favour of the new flag which, of course, means scrapping the red ensign.
I have always been interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) about a republic. I find it difficult to believe there is support for a republic in his riding and I can only say he is either foolhardy or he knows what his people are thinking. It strikes me that in a historic place like Lotbiniere the people would certainly have great respect for the monarchical form of government.
I was also interested in the speech of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) the other day. Everybody in the house knows he is a very active Anglican layman, and I say more power to him. But in his speech he disowned completely the red ensign and its historic traditions and connections with the Anglican church. He made absolutely no reference to it. I am not criticizing his stand but I think he should have tried to explain this change in his thinking.
We have also had, of course, the famous speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) which has been given so much attention. I can only say that it represented a walking of the plank such as we have not seen since the days of Captain Bligh. Hon. members may ask when I think the flag crisis became serious, and I should like to go back to the 1940's for a moment. I lay the entire blame on the Liberal party

and their failure to provide proper, enlightened national leadership, particularly during the so-called Mackenzie King era. I say that they have failed even to grasp the essentials of nationhood and I intend to prove this point.
In his speech the other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce showed great solicitude for the future and fortunes of the Conservative party. I intend to demonstrate it is his type of membership in the so-called Ottawa establishment of liberal, with a small "1", civil servants, English speaking and British educated in most cases, which is more to blame than anything else for the division that has crept into the country. I intend to show that this group who typify this pseudo-Canadianism, and I include in it the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and any other members of this Ottawa hierarchy, willy-nilly accepted the Mackenzie King philosophy of the day, this misguided Liberalism of the first water that played with the constitution and turned our national life into the volcano of power politics to sustain at all costs the life of the Liberal party. These individuals were the henchmen, knowingly or otherwise who perpetuated the legacy of William Lyon Mackenzie King. The victims, Mr. Speaker, are you and I, the Canadian people, and we are paying for it dearly today in many ways, particularly in the departure of many of our symbols and traditions that go to the very root of our way of life?


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


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: How do you reconcile your words this afternoon with your party's slogan in the 1957-58 election campaign, "Canada first"? Is there an apple gone bad over there?


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, I intend to demonstrate that the Conservative party has put Canada first, but not at all costs like the Liberals under Mackenzie King.
The flag, while it may give the foundation of our traditions is only an outward symbol. This deliberate policy of tampering with the distinctive emblems of our past history can only result in the weakening of the monarchy and, of course, our nationhood. The creeping republicanism that has been challenged so forcefully by Dr. Eugene Forsey can
Canadian Flag
only result in turning this nation to republicanism. I wish to quote for a moment from Dr. Eugene Forsey's remarks which were made in 1955 in a radio broadcast on January 14. They show his foresightedness and they demonstrate the beginnings of the problems that you and I have to face. I quote his remarks:
But why do I call all this "creeping republicanism?" Well, "creeping" it most certainly is; sly, slithering, serpentine. And I just wish I had time to recite to you the bad history, bad law, bad logic, the insults, the crass ignorance, the distortions of the dictionary, with which the government and its hangers-on have tried to defend the indefensible. They are almost beyond belief.
It's creeping and it's "republicanism." It just doesn't make sense on any other basis. If it was all innocent, why the long years of stealth and secrecy? Why the flouting of law and constitution? Somebody has had some serious purpose in all this. It may not have been the government itself. Ministers may have just yielded to pressure. But, inside the government or outside, or both, the pressure has been there, steady, insistent, relentless. The people who applied it knew what they wanted; to root out familiar and distinctive terms which bind us to our institutions, so that they could remould them nearer to their hearts' desire. They would never have got as far as they have if more of us realized what the monarchy meant, and why it was worth preserving. But, that's another story: the melancholy story of how, for nearly 30 years, our people have been steadily and systematically miseducated about our constitution, and particularly about the role of the crown as the guardian of that constitution, the protector of parliament and the people against cabinet dictatorship. Fortunately, however, there have been many thousands who have never bowed the knee unto Baal; and there are signs now that many thousands more are beginning to understand what has been happening, and to resist. That resistance will spell the end of "creeping republicanism."
I mention that to show that the policy of Mackenzie King has been continued by his successors in the Liberal party. The Liberals, at times in our history, played an important part, but not as great a part as the party of which I am a member. They have played their share in our formative years, but someone forgot to tell them to stop.
Having blamed this creeping republicanism on Mackenzie King, it is only fair to ask why these changes were allowed to take place. Why is it that everything connected with our English background has to be removed? I refer not only to the designation of "dominion" which was removed from our telephone books, but even the word "royal" has been removed from the phrase "royal mail" on post office boxes. Even the word "British" itself now brings hatred and anger in some quarters. In my opinion, it is all the fault of incorrect premises, the assumptions centred around Quebec and our French traditions. In

Canadian Flag
order to obtain Canadian unity we must accept French Canada as the basic, positive form of Canadianism, and English speaking Canadians must work to become identified with this type of true Canada. In other words, it seems to have become an established fact that no Canadian virtues are to be found in our Anglo-Saxon traditions.
As a witness, I call a book entitled "Freedom Wears a Crown" by John Farthing. This was an outstanding young Canadian who died at an early age. Like Dr. Forsey, he foresaw what was happening. I predict that as the years go by this will become a very famous book. This is what he said on page 87 of this book:
It is of the essence of the Kingsian conception of Canadian unity, not only that such unity is to involve an harmonious relationship between the French and the English communities in this country, but that harmony is possible only by destroying all real sense of community among the English speaking people of Canada. They must find themselves as a people by ceasing to mean or to stand for anything in and of themselves, save what is compatible with a unity the terms of which are dictated by others. The English speaking people of Canada are to find unity and hence their soul by standing ready to relinquish every shred of their heritage and tradition, and to abandon everything that has hitherto given them a distinctive character and made them the not wholly contemptible people that they are.
Although I have made a great many references to Quebec, I feel it is English Canada and many of the leaders mentioned who bear a greater responsibility. If there have been meaningful contributions by English Canada, then they have been obscured. The leaders have failed and I charge the Liberal party with this neglect because, after all, they have governed this country certainly for a majority of years in recent times. It is not the fault of Quebec, let there be no mistake about it-* it is not the fault of Quebec that no one knows what English Canada is doing. We do not know our own achievements, our goals and our frontiers. While I do not pretend to know what French Canadians want or where they are going, I am certain we English Canadians have lost sight of our objectives, of our culture and nationalism.
It may be also that Anglo-Saxon Canadianism has been too apologetic and too negative. It may be that we have advanced economically, but other movements have been stifled. This is why I am attempting to lay the cards on the table. We may not need a silent revolution, as is the case in Quebec now, but we do need a different type of Canada, one that espouses certain basic terms, not of one Canada or the other but in the traditions of

each. I want to say that the leader of my party consistently, throughout the years, has stood for one Canada.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I quote once more from this book "Freedom Wears a Crown". Mr. Farthing has expressed this in a much better way than I could:
-the people of French Canada are faced with the same basic issue as are their English speaking compatriots. We have to decide whether we are to become again a democracy functioning according to our constitutional idea and ideal of government, or whether we are to become a dependant republic. That is the basic issue of Canadian unity and those are the terms in which the question has valid meaning. It is also the first and all important question facing Canada, since the answer to almost every other question will depend upon the answer we give to it. The question belongs outside partisan power-plays. It is a matter far too serious to be subjected to appeals to popular prejudice on either side. It ought to be treated in a manner befitting an adult people mature in their political thinking.
Having said that about certain matters of French and English Canadian nationalism, I now deal briefly with what has been referred to as republicanism. I do not know what degree of republicanism there is in this country today. The hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) stood up in this house in answer to a question and said flatly he was a republican. He also said he was not a separatist. I find it very difficult to assess how a person could be a republican and not a separatist, but he has stated, as a member of parliament sitting in this house, that he is in favour of a republic. Evidently there must be some feeling for this in his constituency.
I call as my first witness a very distinguished French Canadian. I refer of course to Premier Jean Lesage of Quebec who, in the triumphant tour which we all recall he made of France in 1963, said in London, according to a dispatch in the Chronicle-Herald by Mr. Eric Dennis:
Premier Jean Lesage of Quebec said here yesterday that the flames of nationalism in his province, fired by "a feeling of resentment over not getting a square deal" in the Canadian partnership were now on the wane.
And at the same time he assured the British that "French Canadians as a whole looked to London and the crown as their great protector."
"The French Canadian would be the last to join the United States if there was any move for Canada to be absorbed by the Americans," he added. "He wants to stay in the commonwealth. The French Canadian is a royalist. Never forget that."
I place this on the record with pleasure. It shows the division between the federal and Quebec Liberals on this matter of a republic,

and it is also comforting to know that at least someone in Quebec is in favour of the monarchy.
As my last witness I recall the words of Lord Elgin who, in 1847, referring to the proper respect being shown at that time for French nationalism, asked:
Who will not venture to say the last hand which waves the British flag on American ground may not be that of a French Canadian?
The main criticism that has been made in this debate has been in reference to the timing, and this is still the unanswered question as the days roll on. Why was the flag issue introduced in the middle of a busy legislative program, a program that was slowly showing some success? Why was it that the Prime Minister all of a sudden interrupted the daily business of the _ house and introduced the flag debate? Was it that the Queen's visit had something to do with the Prime Minister's decision suddenly to stop the government's business that was, after all, making some progress?
One thing is certain, and I say this to the senior minister presently in the house, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), we cannot be debating a flag in this house when the Queen is inspecting troops outside on the lawn of parliament hill. This is my argument; it is difficult to separate the flag from the crown because exactly the same arguments apply.
We hear a great deal these days about being broadminded. I may be old fashioned but I think there is too much broadmindedness in the modern world. This may be one of the reasons why we parents are failing, as evidenced by the many problems of our juveniles. Perhaps we have failed in our responsibilities to the youth of this nation in not bringing forth a proper nationalism with the necessary symbols that demonstrate the great strength of our system of government which is, as I say, in monarchical form.
While we fear the extremism that is showing itself across the border, and has been particularly in evidence in recent days, it is surely not wrong to stand for something which demonstrates the essential character of this country and protects, constitutionally at least, all that is French Canadian. I refer of course to the main theme in my remarks today, the symbol of the crown.
Let us remember that we chose in Canada as our political system the monarchical form of government. For one, I would like to see the crown on our flag if the red ensign is not to be. I think this would be a protection for our commonwealth link and it would dem-
Canadian Flag
onstrate to all in this nation, particularly the youth, the system of government under which we live, and it would put the lie to all those who have false ideas of a republic.
We made our decision freely, both elements, the French and the English, that the crown, the cabinet and the Commons would be our constitutional form of government. We cannot abrogate any one of these three elements; and that is why I am extremely worried that any inroads on the crown, be it merely symbols or designations, or some serious change in the constitution itself, will drastically weaken our whole form of government.
To get back to my own position, I have stated at home and I repeat now that I strongly believe in the red ensign, or red ensign with modifications, and have for some time pledged my support to the Canadian Legion, the I.O.D.E. and the many other organizations that have argued for the retention of the red ensign as Canada's national flag. I do not know the thoughts of all those in the mari-times but I am certain that the majority favour the retention of the red ensign, but I put this qualification on the record that if in some way it could be proven that the new flag of the Prime Minister is a final act of Canadian unity then we might have different thoughts. But as I have said, to me this suggests other steps and I feel it has caused serious misgivings, and that is the reason why many are digging in.
However, if the majority of the Canadian people indicate by plebiscite or otherwise a preference for the Prime Minister's design, unhandsome as this design may be, or any other design, I would accept it and I am sure this would be the wish of my constituency. I would also support any reasonable compromise that would come forward-and I notice today many of the newspapers, such as the Montreal Gazette, are calling for such a compromise. This could give us an opportunity to return home and obtain a better assessment of the views of our electors.
If a committee of this house were set up, as was suggested by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and later taken up by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) it would of course meet with my approval. We would be certain that by doing this an election would be avoided, and each of us could get down to the serious business of our country and make our long term plans for real unity in 1967 and the great future of Canada. There has been some criticism made of the type of debate. I took part in the pipe line debate a few years ago and at that time

Canadian Flag
we did not apologize for any of the parliamentary tactics which were used. I think the same holds true today, even though the issue has not at this stage reached the same proportions.
I again call as a witness in connection with this matter of parliamentary tactics Dr. Forsey who, in the course of an address to the men's and women's Canadian clubs on June 19, 1956, in Edmonton-the home city of the hon. member who preceded me and who made such an excellent speech in this debate-had this to say:
Construction is neither new nor vicious. It is, of course, "not by any to be taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly, but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly," and from a deep conviction that it is indispensable in the public interest. Obstruction is a legitimate, recognized, time-honoured and essential part of the parliamentary system; in the last resort, with the government's power of dissolution, the only way of keeping parliament responsible to the people.
In closing, I merely wish to say that we in the official opposition are taking our action in this flag matter "reverently, discreetly, advisedly and soberly".


Mrs. Eloise Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, a flag is, and always has been, a symbol raised high, a focal point for those intense feelings of joy and grief, fear and faith, aspiration and courage felt both individually and shared simultaneously in a common and uniting experience.
The flag as a symbol has enfolded in memory for many people all the vivid colour of past deeply rooted experiences of national life. Sometimes it waves proudly on the stage of memory as an emblem of triumph and achievement; again, it may conceal crucial and painful events which some, understandably do not wish to relive. But whatever it means or does not mean to each of us in this place, we must all recognize the fact that for many it is deeply rooted in a sense of identity.
As a student, years ago, I remember a teacher suddenly directing a question to a fellow student: "How do you know who you are?" And the answer came: "Because I am the one who has had a certain set of experiences". We began to consider memory as a key to identity. The chain of experiences that contribute to identity are emotionally coloured and achieve importance in our lives depending on the intensity of their emotional content. The flag is bound by ties of emotion to some very important events in the lives of people.
In the course of our national history, this allegiance to a known and honoured flag has 
been-and especially has this been true in time of war-strongly encouraged by leaders and those who influence the lives of men.
If such a flag is suddenly lowered, emotions may flood forth whose intensity may well surprise both the individual and the nation. This is what we have seen happening before our very eyes during the past few weeks. More and more people have been realizing their close identification with a flag that is being torn aside, and feeling a sense of shock and loss of identity in the process. We must speak for these people. And the government must offer them something more than the assurance of its respect for their flag as a memory.
Some have said: "What is a flag? A flag is only what we make of it". This is true. This is what has happened down through the years with the red ensign. People have attached to it very deep emotional significance, the intensity of which was not always consciously realized. But when that symbol is threatened, the area of threat widens and deepens to arouse emotions that might well have slumbered, and we discover that it is no light thing to tamper with what lies deep within the hearts and minds of people.
One cannot sit in judgment, for who of us can judge? There is not one who does not have deep emotional and idealistic ties which involve objects and associated beliefs and circumstances; the flag is a prime example of this kind of attachment.
I am going to read some extensive comments from one letter I received from a constituent on this subject-a veteran of world war two. These are very interesting and thoughtful comments from an individual who plays a responsible role in the community, and who says:
I am against the new flag. I am not violently against it at the moment, and yet my feelings are strange-it does not necessarily mean I am easy about it, nor that anybody can do anything they want. It is unsettling to feel that somebody can come along and interfere with it, pass a resolution and give us a new one. I wouldn't want to fight over it. And yet I don't want anybody else doing anything to change it. I think many people out here feel the same way.
Then the writer goes on:
I feel they weighed this flag business on votes, not on the roots of the country or the sensibilities and deep loyalties of the people. When I see the red ensign, I don't think of Britain, I think of Canada. When somebody suggests getting rid of it I also see St. Andrew's cross in that flag, and I'm sure others see St. Patrick's cross and the cross of St. George. People say "Of course, your support of the red ensign is an emotional thing". If support for the flag we have is an emotional argument, then is it not also an emotional argument to attack it or suggest removal of it? If

emotion is to be ruled out, then the emotions of the other side must be ruled out also.
Certainly it is an emotional thing. Canadians are not too demonstrative. We make use of our flag as much as we do, I think, because Americans are such flag wavers they forced us into it.
We are embarrassed when we sing O Canada or The Queen, but let nobody for a moment think we do not feel emotions about such things.
The flag does not determine the nation; the nation determines the flag. If Canada had used another symbol at Vimy Ridge, if another symbol had flown from her ships, airports and army depots during the second world war; if it had fluttered over our men in Hong Kong, Dieppe, Sicily, Or-tona, on D-day; if our soldiers, sailors and airmen had been buried under it during the second world war, then we could all be proud of that flag.
No. Canada made the red ensign what it is today. Must we pitch over many years of work and sacrifice now?
He goes on:
Is a flag something that from time to time we invite an interior decorator in to have changed, to be brought up to date? No, it's not. Canada has many years of tradition invested in the red ensign and this must not be lightly discarded as we would an old sofa.
Is a commercial artist to choose our flag? Or is it not proper to let those who have sacrificed most keep the one they served under and would serve again?
He goes on:
Parliament must tread with care. There is still ample reason for feeling that men are moved today by certain honoured symbols just as they were moved in the days of the pipes and the claymore and the battle cry.
The idea boys would have nothing to do with this sort of factor; it's not scientific; it's not logical. But they are not dealing with chemicals, computers or statistics; they are dealing with human beings.
That is why our flag should not be controversial. It is above that; just as it is above our heads as it flies from thousands of slender poles throughout the country today.
Mr. Speaker, many members have very seriously and ably presented arguments to justify retention of the red ensign either as it is or in modified form. May I say, with all respect, I believe these arguments are not essential to the present situation, because the central fact remains that millions of Canadian people are not yet ready to give it up. That fact in itself, in a democratic country, should be sufficient reason to give the government pause and inspire it to pursue a different course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eloise May Jones: We are not really concerned with justification for allegiance so much as we are concerned with our clear duty to recognize and respect the reality of a continuing loyalty to a flag that signifies so much to so many.
Canadian Flag
Surely this capacity to accept and deal with a situation as it develops is one that is not foreign to politicians and governments. It is an important aspect of political life. One cannot say, "This should not be". The fact is, it is; this is the situation-and from the point of view of democracy it has to be dealt with in the light of what course is best for the Canadian people. And the voice of the people must be heard. I hope that even before consideration is given, for example, in the form of a plebiscite as outlined by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) there would be a decision made by the Prime Minister to refer this far reaching and troublesome question to a committee not subject to a time limit; for to invite speed here is to summon discord.
This place is not a show, and those who impatiently watch the deliberations in this chamber must not expect a glib and arbitrary disposal of problems which would slur over the rights and expressed desires of millions of Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eloise May Jones: On this important question of a flag for Canada, the onus is on the government to adopt a different course, a course in the direction of mutual respect and harmony; and on this path may discretion be the better part of valour.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in rising, as the spokesman of the people in my riding of Nicolet-Yamaska on the matter of a distinctive national flag.
As far as I am concerned, I am exerting the privilege loaned by the people of Nicolet-Yamaska-and I say loaned because the people of my constituency can at any time take away this privilege I have the right of exerting today-that is to be able to rise in the house as often as I want to express my views in all due freedom of speech and action.
At this time, the opposition is blamed without rhyme or reason for staging a filibuster on the question of a distinctive national flag. For the time being, the people, more particularly in the province of Quebec, believe that this discussion has already lasted four months. No, Mr. Speaker, this debate has not lasted so long as that, for we have hardly had 15 days of discussion.
I believe that I expressed my views on various occasions on the flag, and I have still not changed my mind, when I state that I am in favour of a distinctive national flag for Canada.

Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clément Vincent: On November 21, 1962, I mentioned in the house what I believed to be the five points we should consider before choosing a distinctive design which could be flown throughout Canada, in every province, and would also represent Canada in every country in the world.
The policy of the Conservative party is well known in this respect, and last Thursday, I was proud to hear the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), whom I have always admired-perhaps because I am particularly devoted to the cause of our farmers -tell the house which principles the Conservative party wants to see preserved when a distinctive national flag is chosen. First of all, he said that the flag should be acceptable to the majority of Canadians. Second, it should recognize our dual culture and be a symbol of our history. Third, the flag should have a religious significance. Fourth, Canada's political evolution should be accepted without revolution.
In 1962, I said first that I wanted this debate, which holds the attention of the Canadian nation, to be carried on with dignity and not to be made into a matter of political partisanship.
By the way, I would like to tell my colleagues who sit in this house that we must now discuss this matter and that when it has been decided, those who have not spoken should not range all over Canada and pit one race against the other, as has often been done in the past, and more especially in our province, when for 30 or 40 years we have heard about conscription and heard charges to the effect that a political party was in favour of conscription or war. If we do not want to play one race against the other, we must say immediately what we have to say, listen to the viewpoints of others and then walk hand in hand towards the ideal that we have set up.
If this first point is to be efficient, all political partisanship must be eliminated, so that the flag design which the nation will choose will be selected not by a single man but by a group representing all political parties, a group which has no reason to indulge in political partisanship by suggesting such and such a choice. That was the first point I mentioned in November 1962.
The second point I raised was the following: if all Canadians recognize the necessity of having a flag of their own, on the other hand they do not all agree on the flag design. All members are aware of that and

they have received through the mails hundreds of designs for a distinctive national flag. But all do not agree on the design and that is why the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved an amendment to the resolution and the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) introduced a subamendment. By the amendment and subamendment, they ask the government to let the people decide the flag design. I shall revert to this question in a few moments.
The third point was the following: I am not one of those who want to ram a flag design down the throat of the rest of the nation. I agree that each group should try and have the rest of the nation understand that such and such design should be chosen.
At the present time we are discussing a design proposed by one man and consisting of three red maple leaves on a white field with two blue bands at each end. That design was chosen, as I said, by one man or by a small group without any previous discussion, not even at the caucus of the party involved or in the cabinet.
That design was chosen and they want to give it to the Canadian people. But when someone objects or gives his views on the design chosen, he is charged with being against a distinctive national flag. As far as I am concerned I do not like the design with the three red maple leaves, but I am for a distinctive national flag. I do not like this design, like several of my compatriots in the province of Quebec.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I should like to report a fact that happened in my home. When I arrived with copies of the flag with three maple leaves on a white shield and blue bands, my ten year old son asked me: "What is this?" I said: "This is the flag proposed by the government in the House of Commons." Then, he asked me: "What are those three things in the centre?" I told him: "Those are maple leaves." He answered: "Dad, we have maples on our farm. We have some in the yard and the leaves do not look like these. They are not the maple leaves we see here, in our yard, on our farm."
Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I admit that the remarks of that young boy saying they were not maple leaves made me think twice.
And they would like to adopt a flag, telling the Canadian people that those are maple leaves.


Yvon Dupuis: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Clément Vincent: Certainly.


Yvon Dupuis: Does the hon. member think that the fleur-de-lis represented on the flag of the province of Quebec look like those he sees in his garden?


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, to answer the
minister, I shall say that, before I was elected as a member of the House of Commons, I did not think that a minister could be like the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville.


Yvon Dupuis: Answer my question-


Clément Vincent: I thought a minister was quite different.


Yvon Dupuis: I asked you a very simple question. Answer it.


Mr. Smallwood:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) had no right to get up in the house without recognition from you and interfere with the speech of the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should mention to the hon. member that I have recognized the minister. I think the Chair can recognize an hon. member otherwise than by standing and calling on him by naming his constituency or his cabinet position. The minister got up and asked permission to ask a question, and this was granted by the hon. member who has the floor. I suggest that that was tantamount to recognition.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, my fourth point is this. A Canadian flag is a symbol of unity; it should not divide a nation. Now, when we have reached a compromise enabling us to choose a really distinctive Canadian flag, we can rest assured that it will be flown with pride in every Canadian province, including the province of Quebec, and honoured by the whole Canadian nation.
That is what I said in 1962 and what I am saying again today.
We must select a design which will unite and not divide the nation. We must choose a design which will be a rallying sign.
If we could decide upon such a choice, I, for one, think that it would be to the greatest advantage of all Canadians in every province of Canada.
My fifth point is this. I should like to point out once again that our flag should be a symbol of unity. Bearing that in mind, our flag should be so designed that it takes into account the aspirations of the two main groups
Canadian Flag
in the country. It should reflect our sovereignty, our accession to the rank of independent state and show that we are free from any political link of subservience.
There is now in Canada a nation-wide group which cannot conceive a Canadian flag without the union jack being an integral part of it. There is another group on the government side which cannot conceive that Canada can have a distinctive flag without retaining the union jack as a second flag.
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I feel that exactly the same question is now being discussed. Several, maybe all of my English speaking friends, attach prime importance to the union jack. A few want it on the new flag and others want it as second flag.
Would it not be possible to have, maybe not the union jack, but something that would represent it, for our English speaking fellow citizens?
When the Leader of the Opposition proposed some amendments to the flag Canada recognized by order in council in 1945, by including a fleur-de-lis, he did not want to appease French Canadians as suggested unadvisedly, in my opinion, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he stated:
A clumsy and gratuitous piece of appeasement: it must have appeared to my French Canadian friends as a bone thrown out to a troublesome minority to keep them quiet.
Frankly, I do not believe that in proposing
that a fleur-de-lis be added to a flag design, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition ever wanted to appease thereby the French speaking Canadians. He wanted to find a compromise, so that the two great founding races of this country could be represented on the same flag. He was looking for some common ground where, together, we could unite under the same flag.
Personally, I object to the union jack, in its present form, being shown on the distinctive flag. I want what the people of my riding want. I object also-and I speak honestly-to the fleur-de-lis being shown on the distinctive flag. But I might accept on the flag what the union jack means for my English-speaking friends and what the fleur-de-lis means for my French speaking friends. I would also accept on the distinctive flag symbols of our ties with our mother countries. Mr. Speaker, because of this proposal, I would not like my friends in the Liberal party to say or claim that I am throwing a bone to my English speaking friends.
For instance, if we could go back to the origin of our two races, we would find that

Canadian Flag
in 1497 John Cabot came to Canada, more exactly to Newfoundland, under a royal mandate, flying the white banner with St. George's cross. Later on, when Jacques Cartier came and discovered Canada in 1534, he flew a blue pennant with a white cross. Each having a royal warrant, those two men came to discover this country, and this was the starting point of a great nation.
If we were able to take those two crosses representing the English and French flags, and place them on a white field symbolizing the vast snowfields of this country, the Indians and Eskimos, in short, if we could arrange those two crosses without giving either of them priority, to show that this is a union of two great races which we formed in this country, and that we propose to go on working for its prosperity, we should certainly obtain the support of all our people.
The union of those two races would form a circle, which is the sign of unity, and we would, because of those two crosses, obtain the colours of Canada: blue, white and red.
On this flag, we would have a cross, which is the sign of a Christian nation. As 97 or perhaps 98 per cent of Canadian citizens are Christians, I do not think that a cross on a flag could be dishonourable; on the contrary, I think that a cross on the flag would certainly honour the Canadian nation. In the central circle, there could be a green maple leaf, which would indicate a growing Canada. That maple leaf might have 10 points, because an ordinary maple leaf can have 9, 10, 11 and even 12 points. Those 10 points would represent the ten Canadian provinces, and if, later on, another province happened to join the big Canadian family, another point might simply be added, to identify the new province.
Such a flag would have neither union jack nor fleur-de-lis, but it would indicate what the union jack means to a great number of our English speaking friends.
We would have the white cross on a field of azure to remind us of our past and we would have a circle in the middle to indicate that we are a united people in a country represented by a green maple leaf.
We could then visit our schools and meet the students. We could explain to them the meaning of the flag by recalling the whole Canadian history. We could start with 1497, mention 1534 and go on to confederation in 1867. We could tell them about the confederation pact and finally we would say: We are a united people.

In my opinion, this flag would be first and foremost a flag accepted by the majority of Canadians. Moreover, it would recognize our dual culture and would symbolize our history. It would also have a religious significance and would acknowledge the political evolution of Canada, without being revolutionary.


Mr. Drouin:: Will the hon. member allow a
question?


Clément Vincent: Certainly.


Vincent Drouin: Could the hon. member tell us whether he has rallied to his cause his colleagues of the Tory party and the leader of his party? Do they support his flag proposal?


Clément Vincent: To answer my hon. friend's question, I must tell him this: If the leader of his party, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), had consulted even a group of members, such as the member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes-


An hon. Member:: He did.


Clément Vincent: It is not what the hon. member-


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As far as I am concerned, notwithstanding the statement made by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) I was consulted, and so were all my colleagues of the Liberal party, before the Prime Minister submitted his three maple leaf flag design to the house.


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


Clément Vincent: I admit that the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes was perhaps consulted before the leader of the government brought in his resolution, but he did not say that he and his friends were consulted before the leader of the government introduced his proposal in Winnipeg to the newspapermen, or what he did before he submitted it to the cabinet. On that point, he may have consulted the hon. members of the Liberal party before introducing it to the house, but when he consulted his colleagues or his friends or the members of his party, everything was decided. In that, I feel that the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes approves me and that even if he had put forward objections as we

did, there was no change to make; that was
the one, and they had to support it.
I want to repeat once more, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Boulanger:: Answer my question.


Clément Vincent: Does the hon. member for Mercier have a question to ask?


Mr, Boulanger:: I asked a question a while ago and you have not yet answered.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, having not heard the question I cannot answer it.
Once more, I wish to repeat this: at the present time, there are in the Liberal party members who will not speak on this flag issue. They will not speak on the second part of the resolution either.
I wish to tell them this: it would be much preferable that you say what you have to say here, in the house, instead of making all kinds of statements in the province of Quebec during the next federal election, in order to set one part of the population against the other.
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, because we meet at the present time organizers and members of that party who ask us, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce did the other day: What are you going to do to get elected in the province of Quebec, if you are against the three maple leaf flag?
But that does not mean that we are against a distinctive flag. And I would tell them this: It is not by flying a flag that all the problems we are confronted with at the present time in the province of Quebec will be settled. For 30 years, it paid dividends, for instance, to talk about conscription, but now, the farmers and the labourers want the country to look towards economy and not only towards emotion.
I even invited a group of members to spend a week in my constituency during the next election and to speak about the flag. Meanwhile, since my electors know my opinion on this matter, I shall speak about other things of greater importance.
What is happening in the province of Quebec is precisely that people realize that for too long, in the federal parliament, we discussed emotional matters only to do windowdressing and we forgot to discharge our responsibilities concerning economic matters.
I should like to quote from memory a speech made by Hon. Arthur Sauve, former federal minister, father of the late Paul Sauve, premier of the province of Quebec. Speaking at the college of L'Assomption, in 1931 or 1932, he said: "If we want to discuss politics
Canadian Flag
in the province of Quebec, we must appeal to emotions-that is what the Liberals were doing at that time-while in other provinces, we must discuss politics and bring forth arguments."
Well, I believe that is a thing of the past in the province of Quebec as in other provinces. If we wish to discuss politics, let us use arguments and stop appealing to emotions and tell


an hon. member:: "Because you are against the three-leaved flag, even if you are in favour of a distinctive flag, you shall go down to defeat at the next election."
As far as I am concerned, I am and will always remain in favour of a distinctive national flag. I would be glad if, at last, the right hon. Prime Minister of this country would decide to convene a committee of the house. We would discuss the matter for a few weeks and I am sure we would be able to choose a design acceptable to all Canadians, or at least to the great majority of them.
If the committee is convened, I personally will propose the design I mentioned earlier, in order that all the members of the house may realize that by retaining what symbolizes the past of each race, we will have a flag which will unify the two groups and bring them closer together, in short, which will not divide them.
Moreover, if, as a last resort, I have to fight to have the three maple leaves replaced by one, as seen on this flag, especially of a colour which stands for a growing Canada, a united Canada, perhaps made up of two races-not only perhaps, but actually composed of two distinct races forming a great Canada, a complete whole-well, I shall fight to have those three maple leaves replaced by one maple leaf only.
If it is impossible for us, in this house, to make the Prime Minister understand that his three red maple leaf flag will not be readily accepted among the Canadian people, we should be able to make him realize that it is not enough to come and tell the people: "Here is a distinctive flag, do not bother about the design", because, once the people have the flag accepted and raised it, it will be too late to say, after a year or two: "Well, we should have had this or that on the flag instead of those three maple leaves". We must then accept it as is and never change it.
That is why we are exerting so much pressure and making these requests. We beg our colleagues of the Liberal party to exert pressure on the Prime Minister to set up a committee to choose a design which, as I said, would unite and not divide the country,

Canadian Flag
in short, knit together into one unit all the elements of our country.
I am sure that my English speaking friends are prepared to make major concessions and that they are prepared, as I said earlier, while retaining what, for them, symbolizes their past and their origin, to find a design that will satisfy both groups and still be accepted by the majority of Canadians.
If this committee is established-


Mr. Choquefie:: Allow me to rise on a very brief point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I listened with great interest to the remarks of my hon. friend. I understand that much latitude has been allowed during the discussion on the subamendment. But I wonder whether it would not be in order to ask the hon. member if he is in favour or not of a referendum. Would it be in order to ask? Since he is proposing a design, it means he is against a referendum. If such is the case, let him say so.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member for Lotbini&re, in the proposals relating to a plebiscite, mention is made of the red ensign, of a modified red ensign, of the three-leaved flag and of a one-leafed flag.
The hon. member asked me to give my opinion. If he had been present in the house when I began my remarks, he would have noticed that I expressed myself clearly on this matter. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat my remarks.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, when he said that I should limit my remarks to the amendment and the subamendment-
Mr. Choqueiter Yes or no, are you in favour of a plebiscite?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Clément Vincent: On that, Mr. Speaker-


Auguste Choquette: I asked, Mr. Speaker,
whether the hon. member was in favour of a plebiscite, yes or no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska.


Clément Vincent: I would ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere to read his speech tomorrow-


Auguste Choquette: I do not have time.


Clément Vincent: -and when he has read it, I will ask him if he is for or against the union jack as a second flag for Canada.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to raise a point of order and after that, I will rise on a question of privilege.

First, with regard to the point of order, the union jack is not the subject matter of the debate right now.
With regard to the question of privilege, the hon. member asked me a question about the union jack. That is completely out of order and against the rules of the house. This is my question of privilege. The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska has no right to ask me such a question, as we are not discussing the union jack at the present time.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere reminds me of a card player who prepares a bluff. He says: Do not look at my cards but I would like to know what there is in yours.
At all events, I would ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere-it is very easy to answer -to tell us whether or not he will vote for the union jack as a second flag?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that he make his own remarks. I think it is not conducive to good order and debate in the house for an hon. member who has the floor to ask another member to make a speech. I have the impression that if the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) got up to reply to this question and went on for a few minutes, perhaps the hon. member for St. Mary might feel at that point that he had lost the floor. I suggest therefore that he complete his remarks.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I immediately come back to the referendum and the four proposals in the subamendment. In my opinion, this is an excellent suggestion and it should be carefully considered. We must not forget the fact that we are going to adopt two flags for Canada and when the time comes-


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


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


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, I rise on a point of order and it is unfortunate that it has not been done more often during this debate. When one of our friends opposite accuses us of trying to give Canada two flags, I maintain that it is false, absolutely false. There is no question of giving the country two flags but only one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is no point of order and I would suggest that the

Business of the House
hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska continue [Text]
his remarks.	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I should like to say that when the time comes to vote either on the flag issue, the referendum or any of the proposals contained in the amendment to the amendment, I will take my responsibilities. I will not rim out as my Liberal friends did when the student loans legislation was put to a vote. Neither will I act as a rubber stamp as they did on the nuclear arms issue. I will take my responsibilities, thus setting an example for the Liberal members from Quebec.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It being six o'clock I would like to ask the house leader what departments of the main estimates we will be taking tomorrow and Friday?


Guy Favreau: On Friday we will be considering first the estimates of the Department of Industry, then the Department of Labour and then the Department of Public Works, but I should like to add that the Department of Industry estimates include defence production, atomic energy, national research, medical councils and the emergency measures organization.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 27. 1964