1964-08-27

[Stage Direction]
Yukon Territory
Northwest Territories
The students financial assistance awards committee
Superintendent of education for the Northwest Territories


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in response to a number of questions from hon. members I would like to make a progress report on arrangements under the Canada Student Loans Act. I have delayed doing so pending receipt of information from the provinces on whether they are participating in the plan and on the arrangements they are making to get the plan under way.
All provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories have now decided to participate in this plan, except the province of Quebec. As all hon. members knew at the time the legislation was before the house, the province of Quebec was intending to continue to rely entirely on its own comprehensive plan of student loans, bursaries and scholarships.
Appropriate authorities, as provided under the act, are designated by the provinces as the authority in the province for the purposes of the Canada students loans plan. Nine provinces and the two territories have provided us informally with the following names and addresses of the appropriate authorities which they are designating for this purpose. I will not read the addresses, but in most cases the address is in care of the department of education:
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
Canada student loans authority
Minister of education
Canada student loans committee
Deputy minister of youth and welfare
Department of university affairs
Department of education
Department of education
Students assistance board
The British Columbia student aid loan committee
Except in the case of Ontario, these appropriate authorities will be the only agencies in the province to which students should apply for certificates of eligibility. These certificates may be issued to students who meet the provincial standards on academic qualifications and financial need.
In Ontario, all universities and other specified educational institutions will be entitled to issue certificates of eligibility to students. These institutions are listed in the appendix to this statement. By leave of the house I should like to suggest that this statement be printed as an appendix to Hansard, but if hon. members feel this would not be appropriate it could be done in some other way. However, I think it would be convenient to have the whole matter dealt with in the same document.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For list of institutions mentioned above see appendix.]


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Ontario students applying for a certificate in connection with studies abroad must apply to the Ontario department of university affairs.
All the forms which we must provide in order that the plan may get under way will be sent out next Monday, August 31, to all appropriate authorities of the provinces and to the banks across the country. Regulations under the Canada Student Loans Act will be published in the Canada Gazette during the first week of September.
A brochure is being prepared which will tell students about the qualifications necessary to apply for certificates of eligibility and loans, how much they can borrow, how long they can take to repay, what the cost is likely to be and, most important, where they should apply in each province. This brochure will be printed and available next week for distribution in large numbers to the banks and,

Inquiries of the Ministry through the provincial authorities, to universities and other educational institutions. Copies of this brochure will be distributed to members of parliament.
Thanks to the wholehearted co-operation of all concerned, the Canada student loans plan will be launched, as promised, before the beginning of the academic year 1964-65. In this connection I should like to express the appreciation of the government to all the provinces, without exception, for their ready and helpful participation in our discussions, sometimes at short notice and at no small personal inconvenience to those involved.
Officials of the chartered banks have also co-operated in this endeavour and the government is grateful to them. May I also express a special word of thanks to the officials of several federal departments, including my own, who have worked under very heavy pressure to put this plan into effect at the earliest possible date.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the statement he made at the opening of today's sitting, which is some little time ago now. I should like to ask the minister whether there have been any applications received by him from credit unions for certification under the students loans act, and if so, how many credit unions have made such applications and what action has been taken.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, when I last inquired, which was either yesterday or the day before, I think there were somewhere between half a dozen and ten credit unions which had written in to inquire about this matter. They are all being investigated by the department at the present time.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he authorized any member of the government to solicit orders for bumper strips on which appear the three-leaf flag, and whether his attention has been drawn to a broadcast last evening over CHCH-TV by Mr. Geoff. Scott regarding a letter
(Mr. Gordon.]
forwarded to various colleagues of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) in which it was suggested that members might sell at least 1,000 of these stickers to-


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down. [Translation]


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: -to service stations- [Translation]


Yvon Dupuis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it would be advisable to let the right hon. gentleman finish his statement, so I may decide.


John George Diefenbaker: -to sell at least 1,000 of these stickers to the most important service stations in the riding; the result would be better and would look less political than if the member undertook the publicity himself. I would like the Prime Minister to say whether he has any knowledge of this, and whether it is approved.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of it. I will discuss the matter with my colleague the Minister without Portfolio, and if there is any statement that should be made I will be glad to make it.


Mr. Monteith:: You want to find out what the cabinet is doing.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At no time have I used public funds to distribute or urge members of parliament to do anything with regard to the emblems of the new flag. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is greatly interested in the new flag and in my activities, but I should like to make it clear, by rising on a question of privilege, that the question raised yesterday on television is unfounded. It was asked whether it is right for a minister to use public funds in order to advertise an emblem not yet adopted. My answer is no, it is not right, and I have not done anything of the kind. I would never use public funds for such a purpose.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly now, Mr. Speaker, a further question might be directed to the hon. gentleman. Did he send out the letter asking his colleagues to purchase, at $25 per thousand, these particularly attractive bumper stickers, and did he suggest therein "For information or orders call Mr. George Marshall, 992-2377", which is the telephone number of the minister in whose office Mr. Marshall occupies a position?


Yvon Dupuis: My hon. friends asked me questions. Do they want an answer?
If you give me time to answer I will do so, and with great pleasure.
Mr. Speaker, the letter to which the Leader of the Opposition just referred is confidential. How did he obtain it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You admit it, then.


Yvon Dupuis: No. You had better listen. [Translation]
How did he get it? I do not know. But at any rate he fell into a trap, because I was sure his intelligence service would cause him to rise today in order to cause a sensation as he usually likes to do, by saying:

State the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Leader of the Opposition. Since he asked me questions in regard to the flag stickers, I have placed personally 50,000 of them. He is making the best publicity for the new flag he could ever hope to do in his life.


John George Diefenbaker: I was reading from the broadcast of last evening. I ask the hon. gentleman how many of these confidential letters did he send out, and did he have much success with his colleagues?


Yvon Dupuis: To answer the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition, I could quote many statements in order to prove to him that I had much success since he put his question. I will quote only one, to answer his question. It comes from a doctor, whom I have never seen, from Brantford, Ontario. Here is what he writes:
Inquiries of the Ministry

Dear Sir:
If possible, I would appreciate receiving some bumper stickers of the new flag for which I enclose $5.
Be assured, sir, that there are many residents of Ontario who regardless of their ancestors' origins wish to see Canada truly united under a new distinctively Canadian flag.

And that doctor concludes as follows: [Text]
I feel that we should be looking to the future and not to the past and that the proposed new flag is an expression of this feeling.

I sent him back his $5 cheque because I am not a merchant and I was glad to give him free of charge, as I always do, fine copies of this nice flag which the Leader of the Opposition likes so much.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, evidently the Prime Minister has information which he did not have before. Is it proper and fitting that a minister in his cabinet should be sending out messages to provide for the sale of bumper stickers, and make his office the place to which the returns are to be made? The Prime Minister is laughing, but does he regard it as proper for the office of a minister to be used for that purpose?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if it is proper for a senator and a member of the previous government to send out messages soliciting campaign funds from members of this government, I do not think it is too serious when a member of the government supports and advocates a resolution which is before the house and in which he believes.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly I do not know anything about the letter which the hon. gentleman received-


Mr. Hellyer:: Was it not on behalf of your party?


John George Diefenbaker: -but I can think of no more appropriate place to get money, if you need money, than right over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Simpson:: What's a hundred million?


John George Diefenbaker: However, I ask the Prime Minister this. Does he regard it as proper for a minister to use the services of his office for such distribution at a price, and under a plan whereby the people would be fooled? Because I am informed that the letter says,

Inquiries of the Ministry in effect, "If you could get it distributed by a garage man the result would be better and would be less political".


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already stated that I will look at the letter and make a statement in the house if one is required. I am sorry my right hon. friend has not seen the letter to which I refer, but I will be glad to send him a copy. It is signed by Senator McCutcheon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, since the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has referred to the letter which is in my possession I should like permission of the house to table this letter.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give permission to table this letter?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should now like to ask the Prime Minister and all his associates whether they will table the letter in question that was sent to each and every one of them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understand my right hon. friend has a copy of the letter.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have tabled the letter that we have. I think it would be quite appropriate, as I have not got a copy of that letter, if he were given permission to table it right now.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister not think it is completely disgraceful that the offices of a minister of the crown should be used for the distribution of literature concerning a flag which is not even the flag of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to think that it is disgraceful to waste the time of parliament in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am having a little difficulty hearing.


Yvon Dupuis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot let the Leader of the Opposition state that 1 used public funds to write that letter. I would say to him that, if he had


taken the trouble to look at the confidential letter he has in his hands, he could have seen it was not written on government paper, but on personal paper which does not bear the government seal.
It is important to point this out, because it shows how the Leader of the Opposition can twist the facts around to suit his purpose.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that we have verification that what Mr. Scott said was correct, could I ask the hon. gentleman to table the letter in question, to which he has referred?


Yvon Dupuis: Since this incident began on television and in the press gallery, I should like to submit personally, after the orders of the day, a complete summary of the situation that will show the people how the Leader of the Opposition tries to find scandals where there are absolutely none.


Mr. Georges Valade (SI. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all the members of this house, and I refer to the remark by the Prime Minister that it was not a serious matter. I should like to bring this very serious matter to the attention of the house. When the Minister without Portfolio stood up and said he had sent a confidential letter, I think he made a false statement; because I have a photostat of the letter he sent and there is no mention of it being confidential. I should like the Minister without Portfolio to retract or make a correct statement.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I am going to advise my office right now to send me one of those letters and I will put it under the very nose of the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade).

On a question of privilege-

The hon. member for St. Mary just said that I should withdraw my statement. I think he should withdraw his instead, because I have here a copy of the letter I sent to all Liberal members which bears at the top the word "confidential".
Of course it may be that his friends in the official opposition hid that word when they took a photostat of that letter because

they were ashamed to use a document bearing the word "confidential". In any case, since the hon. member for St. Mary just said to the house that I lied, I would ask him to withdraw his statement, and I table herewith the document as the leader of the official opposition asked me to do.
I would ask the hon. member for St. Mary to withdraw his statement.


Georges-J. Valade: I have nothing to retract, but the Minister without Portfolio should retract the imputations in his statement. He has accused the representatives of this house of taking out the word "confidential". I have mentioned in the house that I have a photostat of the letter the minister sent. I think the minister himself could have the word "confidential" on some letters which originally did not carry the word "confidential".


Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder if the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I tabled a document. I do not accept the point raised by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade). I am asking him to retract his words, as he said that I was not telling the truth to the house.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister without Portfolio with regard to this letter he has just tabled. Has it gone to any persons other than members of parliament; because I understood him to refer to a letter which he got from some person sending in $5 for these stickers. Is the minister in business now, not only serving members * of parliament-


An hon. Member:: That is right; he is in business.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -but the general public? If so, I suggest to the Prime Minister that instead of keeping him as Minister without Portfolio he might create a department of notions and gimmicks over which he could put the minister.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, if I need a partner in "notions and gimmicks", I will ask the leader of the New Democratic party to assist me in my duties.
Now, to answer his question, this letter was only sent to Liberal members. Of course
Inquiries of the Ministry my messenger delivered them; I would certainly not use the messenger of the Leader of the Opposition for this purpose, lest he should enclose some red ensigns.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before this letter is tabled we will need the consent of the house. Does the house give consent to the tabling of the letter?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister without Portfolio. There seems to be a question as to whether the minister is operating legally, and I am wondering whether he has obtained the necessary peddler's licence to conduct this business.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Roselown-Biggar):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Has the hon. member for Carleton approved of this action, and how large an order for stickers has he placed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am impressed, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that there are various forms of filibusters.


Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister without Portfolio. Is the minister remitting Ontario sales tax on the orders for bumper stickers which are being filled from his office?


Yvon Dupuis: I always pay my taxes.


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I would like to ask him whether he is aware that the bumper stickers being peddled by the Minister without Portfolio are very similar to the merchant navy flag of the Soviet union, with the red star of Russia and the hammer and sickle replaced by three red maple leaves?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely that last question should not be taken too seriously.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Prime Minister then, and now is an appropriate time, whether the Minister without Portfolio has any duties other than chief huckster of Liberal propaganda on the flag.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could get on with the public business.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Embarrassing, isn't it?

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question. Would he have with him some statistics concerning the number of speeches made on the flag issue to date and also a breakdown indicating those who spoke the most and the participation of each political party, so that the Canadian public will know where the responsibility lies for all this delay in adopting a distinctive national flag?



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. According to a statement issued by the national unemployment insurance commission employees association they are protesting to the Prime Minister about the salary increases which have been granted. They state that the salaries which have been approved by treasury board and cabinet are just half what was recommended by the civil service commission. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether this statement has been drawn to his attention, and can he tell the house whether it is correct that the salary increases granted for group B are in fact half the amount that was recommended by the federal civil service commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot comment in detail on that, or indeed answer the specific question, but I shall be glad to look into it. I may say that the President of the Privy Council and I are receiving delegations on this matter tomorrow morning.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I may tell him in advance that it is not about Indonesia. In view of the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on its national television news last night, announced that the secretary general of the United Nations had decided to recall the entire United Nations force from Cyprus this month because of a
[Mr. Monteith.I
lack of funds, can the minister tell us just what is the situation in regard to the UN force on Cyprus?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. member for Greenwood had given me notice of his intention to ask the same question. The situation is precisely as stated in the house yesterday by the Prime Minister. The secretary general, it is true, was reported to have said that he would withdraw the force. However, the secretary general has said he did not make that statement. What he had said, at an earlier press conference, was that unless the financial situation, involving a deficit of $2 million, improved, he would have to give consideration to the matter.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs could tell us whether this government or he himself are making any efforts to encourage other nations to contribute the $2 million, which seems a very small sum for the whole of the peace keeping effort on Cyprus to depend upon. Is there anything being done to make sure that money is available?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer to the question is yes. We have made every effort, alongside other countries, to see that the deficit is met. I have hopes that this will be the case. I will be disappointed if it is not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a further supplementary question. The Associated Press report is much more specific than the minister's answer indicates, unless this has been denied by someone. It states that secretary general U Thant said Wednesday night he will hand his recommendation on discontinuing a UN peace keeping force in Cyprus to the security council early next month. What I wanted to ask the minister was will this apply only to those participants who are being financed by the United Nations? Will countries like Canada, who are paying the cost themselves, continue to maintain forces in Cyprus? It seems to me that this would be quite practicable. Has Canada offered to continue the force there at her own expense?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: We will have to look at this matter in the light of the recommendations made to the security council by the secretary general.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norlh):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister has been reported in this morning's Globe and Mail as

indicating that the Canadian government is planning to withdraw part or all of the Canadian forces now in Cyprus on September 26, will the minister comment on that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a decision, of course, that will depend upon the recommendation that will be made by the secretary general to the security council. At that time the Canadian government and other governments will give consideration to those recommendations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My question was whether the Canadian government is actually planning to withdraw troops, because the account in the Globe and Mail this morning certainly indicates this is the government's intention, if the minister was correctly reported.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer is no.


AGREEMENT RESPECTING EXCHANGE OF ATOMIC INFORMATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which someone on the government side might take as notice for him because I did not have time to give him notice. My question concerns a document which was tabled in this house on June 30 dealing with the exchange of atomic information between the United States and her NATO allies. I questioned the minister about it on July 8 and again on July 16. I would like to ask the minister whether he would later give to the house a more accurate statement than he gave on July 16, when he told me, as reported at page 5546 of Hansard:
This agreement concerns the exchange of atomic information for the use of members in scientific purposes.
I had been asking whether the exchange had reference to defence operations. My additional question is this. Will the minister of external affairs refer to the message from the President of the United States to congress concerning this transfer of nuclear information, and apprise the house of the exact terms of that message, which deals with extending information to NATO allies in order that they may make more effective use of nuclear delivery systems?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to bring this to the minister's attention, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS


GREAT LAKES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Will the Minister of Labour carry a question to the maritime union trustees and bring back a reply as to whether Mr. Charles Turner, temporary president of the S.I.U., who was installed in this position by the trustees, is imposing, with full consent and knowledge of the trustees, arbitrary and unjustified conditions in writing upon seamen on the "do not ship list" as a condition to their re-employment in the industry?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Labour express his view as to whether this arbitrary and highhanded method of exercising dictatorial control over the employment of seamen is in accordance with the task which has been given to the trustees by parliament for the restoration of democracy in the S.I.U.?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, because I do not accept at face value the allegations contained in my hon. friend's question.


Michael Starr: Then I ask the minister how he could accept this when he said he would ask the trustees whether they are directing such actions by the president.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I agreed to ascertain the facts, not to accept the hon. member's version of the facts.


Michael Starr: As a further supplementary question, and in order to help the minister and the trustees in bringing down an effectual report, I might say they could refer to a letter dated May 6, 1964, over the signature of Mr. Charles Turner and addressed to Mr. John Wood, Sr. of Verdun, Quebec.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Could he tell the house whether his department has paid its share for all the works completed under the winter works program
7324	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry for 1963-64 by the municipalities of the state of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to take up this matter at half past ten, at the next opportunity.


SOFTBALL GAME FOR DAN MCXVOR TROPHY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that last evening a team of members of parliament from all sides of the house succeeded in recovering the Dan Mclvor trophy from the security staff softball team, by a score of 6 to 5, for the first time in 14 years? As a supplementary question, would the Prime Minister be good enough to agree to keep this trophy for all members of parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was not aware of this important information, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my hon. friend for bringing it to my attention. I only hope the morale of the protective staff will not be so shattered by this defeat that we will not be given sufficient protection from the galleries.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Ponfiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister appointed a special outside advisor on taxation matters and, if so, will he state what are the functions of this new outside advisor?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, some months ago I received a letter from Mr. Arthur S. Pattillo,
Q.C., chairman of the Canadian tax foundation, suggesting that with the work the Department of Finance will be faced with following receipt of the report of the royal commission on taxation, it would be desirable for the department to acquire some additional assistance on a temporary basis.


After considering this very helpful proposal the department decided this would be a good idea. We are grateful to Mr. Pattillo and the other members of the foundation for making the suggestion, and we propose to take on three tax experts for a period of a year or two to help with the implementation of the reports as they are received. I think the first appointment is the one to which my hon. friend referred.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As a supplementary question, will the minister state whether there was no one among the permanent officials of the department who could carry on the functions of this new outside advisor, and will he also tell us from what line of work this advisor has been drawn?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This proposal was discussed with the officials of my department, who felt it was a very good one. The additional assistance will be attached to the department and will work with the permanent staff. The gentleman in question is a tax expert and a chartered accountant by profession.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As a further supplementary question, will he still be drawing his pay from his regular employers?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.


REMOVAL OF TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonion East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the alarming increase in bankruptcies across Canada as reported in the press yesterday, he will now consider removing the sales tax on building materials and production machinery.
Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minisler of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to relate the two subjects to which my hon. friend refers.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Get the experts in quickly.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If there are any changes to be made in taxation they will be announced at the time of the next budget.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As a supplementary question, will the special advisers or assistants the minister has just mentioned be commissioned to advise him on that special tax?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The assistants to whom my hon. friend referred will assist the minister

and the department in translating into legislation such portions of the recommendations of the royal commission as the government may approve of.


William Skoreyko: Does the minister not know that the number of bankruptcies across Canada, alarming as they are, have all happened in the retail business, of which small lumber yards constitute the greatest number?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would think that a highly exaggerated conclusion, Mr. Speaker.


ESTABLISHMENT OF BANK BY CREDIT INSTITUTIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the government be prepared to consider a bill authorizing Quebec caisses populaires and other similar organizations to become shareholders in a co-operative chartered bank having an authorized capital of $10 million?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think I shall have to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


ASSISTANCE TO TEXTILE INDUSTRY TO OFFSET JAPANESE IMPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Do the Minister of Finance and his department intend to take the necessary steps to assist the Canadian textile industries, which are seriously affected in their business by some imports from Japan which have increased by 100 per cent in the last two years?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the Canadian textile industry as a whole has not been in as healthy a state for many years. On the particular question that I referred to yesterday, dealing with the production of worsted cloth, I said that at the Japanese-Canadian ministerial meeting to be held in Tokyo next week this would be one of the subjects we would be looking into.
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE


AMENDMENT OF SUBSIDIES ON FEED GRAINS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. In view of the deep concern of maritime farmers, will the minister inform the house whether the revision in subsidies on feed grains, recently announced as an interim measure, will be amended so that Atlantic provinces' farmers can maintain their competitive position with livestock owners in central Canada?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the interim assistance measures that were announced at the end of July will be amended, but no final decision has yet been reached.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production. Is the government taking any action to release nuclear materials to private industry for peaceful purposes, similar to the action approved yesterday by the President of the United States?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: As
hon. members all know, Mr. Speaker, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has over the years, as a major constituent part of its policy, been endeavouring to develop products of nuclear fission for peaceful purposes, particularly medical uses. This program has been highly successful and will be continued.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have a supplementary question. Do I take it from the minister's answer that no consideration is being given to a change in the nuclear power set-up in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Well, Mr. Speaker, no consideration is being given to any substantial change in the relationships of the Canadian government to other governments in the matter of nuclear power. If the hon. gentleman would be a little more specific as to what change he has in mind, perhaps I could answer him more specifically.
7326	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONSIDERATION OF IMPROVEMENT IN CONSULTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this question to the right hon. Prime Minister in his capacity as reporting to parliament on federal-provincial affairs. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister at the forthcoming federal-provincial meeting to initiate discussions relating to the improvement of permanent consultative machinery between Ottawa and the provinces, and could the Prime Minister relate to the house the nature of suggestions he might be making?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question, which concerns a matter of importance in which I know he has a particular interest. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to its purely commemorative session on September 1 next week, the Charlottetown conference will meet in regular session for only half a day, or at most a full day on September 2. The only item of substance on the agenda is the question of the amendment of the constitution in Canada. However, the conference will probably review also the calendar of federal-provincial conference meetings in 1964, and reference may be made in that review to any improvements which various governments might have been making in their internal machinery and procedures to facilitate federal-provincial consultation and co-ordination, in accordance with the recommendation of the federal-provincial conference in Quebec city last spring.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the construction and rental of buildings in Ottawa is being announced but nothing is being said about Hull. Could the minister tell the house whether he will have at least one building put up in Hull this year?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to the hon. member that it has been decided in principle to erect one federal building in the city of Hull. However, I am not in a


position to say today what type of building it will be and which department will occupy it. As soon as I can, I shall communicate that information to the house.


Alexis Pierre Caron: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can we expect a decision this year?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in a position to give further information regarding that building, in Hull, within a month or so.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. The question relates to a tape recording of a radio interview between Ed Murphy and Cowlishaw and Macdonald in which Macdonald said that unless some action is taken by three o'clock today he intends to go across the country and "blow the lid off" the R.C.M.P. security system. Yesterday the minister said he would investigate this case. Has he done so, and is he in a position to make a statement?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: My answer was given in reply to a question asking whether I was investigating the case. It is obvious that in my capacity as Minister of Justice it is my obligation to do so. But the question whether the facts as alleged by either Mr. Cowlishaw or Mr. Macdonald are accurate is a totally different one, and I think I can only answer it in the words of a previous minister of justice in a former administration, words which I think are absolutely right and which I want to make my own. These are the words of Hon. Davie Fulton in answer to a question asked in the House of Commons on April 29, 1959, as reported in Hansard of that year at page 3152. I will take full responsibility for them today:
I can only answer the question by saying that the government has consistently followed a policy of complete reticence concerning security work, which in such a case means that it must refuse either to acknowledge or deny allegations about the employment of secret sources for intelligence work.
I repeat that under my own responsibility I make those words of Mr. Fulton my own.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, following the answer given to my hon. friend from Danforth. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice

whether he would not agree that if it is true that a man is being discriminated against because of an association with the communist party which he undertook on behalf of the
R.C.M.P., the government and in particular the Minister of Justice has a responsibility to clear this man's name in the circumstances?
Can I ask the minister if he accepts this principle and whether he is prepared to look into the matter on this basis? It seems to me it is not sufficient to tell us that a previous minister of justice said he must be reticent on this subject. If this man's statement is true, his good name is at stake. Surely the minister has the responsibility to clear his good name if the facts he gave to the public are correct.


Guy Favreau: Evidently the question is predicated on an assumption. Therefore it is hypothetical. Second, it purports to ask for a personal opinion on my part. I must tell the house that the answer which was given by a previous minister of justice and which I adopted as my own is the same as was given by ministers of justice in still earlier administrations. This represents an attitude which in certain cases, I must admit, makes for certain apparent hardships. However, it is important and essential to the security of the whole of Canada that as far as these matters are concerned the same line of conduct be followed by this government as was followed by previous governments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would not the minister be as interested in the security of this individual, whose livelihood is affected, as he would be in the security of the R.C.M.P.? Surely the individual has some rights; this is not a police state. If he has had an unfortunate association at the request of the R.C.M.P., and paid for by the R.C.M.P., surely his name should be cleared.


Guy Favreau: Of course I never did refer, and I never would, to the security of the R.C.M.P. as such. This is a gallant body, each of whose members will always place his personal safety and security at the disposal of Canada. I was referring to the security of the whole of Canada, the country as a whole.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may make an observation on the last statement made by the minister, there is certainly no problem more difficult than that of security. Anyone who has occupied a position of responsibility, either as minister of justice or as prime minister, realizes how difficult is that responsibility in this particular field.
Inquiries of the Ministry
However, is it not possible to get around the principle enunciated by the minister, if the facts are as stated, by a declaration by the minister that this man is, in fact, not a communist? Such a declaration, if it is the case, would remove any peril or difficulty in which this gentleman finds himself, and could not by any stretch of the imagination impinge or infringe on national security.


Guy Favreau: This is a matter which would be difficult to determine, but I agree that a delicate situation is involved. I am, to an extent, comforted to learn from the newspapers and from press conferences that, in the words of the person concerned, Mr. Macdonald, he has in fact been expelled from the ranks of the communist party. At least that is what I read in the paper.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Can the
minister tell us what steps he intends to take to prevent Mr. Macdonald making public the security provisions which are now in effect in relation to the communist party? As I understand it, Mr. Macdonald intends to make these arrangements public right across the country, and individuals concerned would be named. What steps does the minister intend to take to prevent this breakdown of security?


Guy Favreau: Of course what is done, or what might be done, by any individual citizen is done, or would be done, on his own responsibility. As to what steps are being taken or will be taken to further the security of Canada, this is something which of course I am not free to divulge at any time, nor is any minister free to divulge this type of information.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has just said Mr. Macdonald has stated publicly that he was expelled from the communist party. Would the minister tell the house and the country whether he became a member of the communist party in the first place under instructions from the R.C.M. Police?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think this is covered exactly and completely by my first answer to the original question.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to take it from the minister's previous statement, when he referred to the responsibility of an individual in revealing R.C.M.P. security measures, and so on, that Macdonald is aware of their security regulations and their security operations to the
7328	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry extent that he can go out and make them known publicly?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this question would not have been asked if my answer had been completely understood. Perhaps it was somewhat imprecise. I never said Mr. Macdonald was in possession of any such secrets or otherwise. What I said was that whatever any individual citizen purports to say in respect of what he purports to have done in the past or in the present will always be said under his own responsibility, and personally I could hardly prevent it.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Minister of Justice whether he is now in a position to give us a report on the peregrinations of Hal Banks. Has he any information from United States immigration authorities whether in the course of his departure from justice in Canada Mr. Banks entered the United States and, if so, on what date?


Guy Favreau: I have no information as to that although I must repeat what I said in the house previously, namely that the Canadian authorities are presently in touch with United States authorities to obtain whatever information may be supplied to us in this respect.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the answer the minister gave a week ago, as I recall it. Surely in the time which has elapsed since that question was asked the minister has been able to place himself in a position to advise us whether the United States immigration authorities have given any information respecting this man.


Guy Favreau: None has been reported to me, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice and concerns the whereabouts of Mr. Hal Banks.
Is the minister aware of the fact that Mr. Banks' property in Dorval, Quebec, is offered for sale for the amount of $110,000?
If so, could he not seek information from the real estate agent looking after the sale


of that property as to the present whereabouts of Mr. Banks. I submit that this would be a way to find out where Mr. Banks is.


Guy Favreau: I shall make a note of the question asked by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Does he propose at this session to introduce a bill in order to increase the veterans' pensions?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question two days ago. I believe and hope I will have a recommendation to make before the fall, that is during this session, if possible.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works. In order to expedite the business of the house, would it be possible to turn out the lights in the house during the flag debate so that filibustering Conservatives may be prevented from reading their speeches?



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The minister is quite ready to assist the Minister of Justice in answering some of his questions, and I wonder why he does not answer some of his own mail. For the last couple of months I have directed letters to him regarding the sinking of the
S.	S. Costello in Hudson straits. Could the minister tell the house what steps the department has taken to correct the wrong impression which is left abroad because of the sinking of the S. S. Costello?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman

did not receive the letter I wrote to him about this matter some days ago, I will send him another copy of it, because it sets the matter out fully.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister tell the house what proposals he intends to present to the commonwealth education conference this afternoon regarding Canada's part in the commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question. Later today I will be saying something at the conference about a program of senior fellowships and visiting educationalists' awards to be financed out of the appropriation provided in the estimates for the commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan; also about the assistance, in the form of transportation to be provided to the African students' foundation, a Canadian organization which is bringing students to Canada from Africa.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could the Secretary of State advise the house whether the government have received any report from the advisory committee on broadcasting; and if not, when they might anticipate receiving one?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, we have received no report, and as I said when I announced the setting up of the committee at the end of May, we are still hoping to get a report of the committee early in 1965.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of Fisheries. Is any action contemplated by the minister in relation to the licensing procedure in the lobster industry in the maritime provinces, in view of the stand taken by the Shediac young Liberal association condemning the present procedure?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, my department is well aware of this situation, which has existed for a number of years, and I must say that it is presently under very active consideration.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege which I would have raised at the start of today's proceedings but the Leader of the Opposition, who is involved in it, was a few seconds late in getting into the house. That is quite understandable, but I did not want to raise it until he was in his place. I might also have raised it yesterday when the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg raised his point of privilege about a statement which appeared in Time, but as far as my question of privilege is concerned, it was not until this morning that I obtained the necessary transcript so as to be sure of the words used which I feel need correction.
I happened to hear the voice of the Leader of the Opposition over radio station CKPM here in Ottawa the night before last and again yesterday morning, when he made a statement in which there were two errors which should be corrected. I have obtained a transcript from Mr. Paul Taylor of CKPM, and I should like to read the words which I think should be corrected. At one point, referring to my open letter of August 12 to the party leaders, the Leader of the Opposition said:
When I received his open letter, which was first given to the press-
-and so on. I wish to make it clear, so that all hon. members may know the facts, that I delivered copies of my open letter by hand-not through a messenger; I delivered them myself-to the office of each leader between nine o'clock and five minutes after nine o'clock on Wednesday morning, August 12. I personally delivered copies to the press later for release at eleven o'clock that morning. That is the first correction.

Canadian Flag
The other statement in the transcript I have in my hand arises out of the reference made by the Leader of the Opposition to the occasion when he offered to place my name before the house in nomination for the speakership of this house. He used these words:
For some reason known to him he refused to allow his name to go before the house-
The implication there is that I did not give my reasons. The Leader of the Opposition knows that I wrote him on August 24, 1957, setting out the reasons for my refusal. My letter was in reply to his letter of August 19, 1957, in which he made the offer; and he, the Leader of the Opposition, who was then prime minister, tabled both these letters in the House of Commons on October 17, 1957. They comprise sessional paper No. 178 of that session.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that nothing tremendous turns on these two misstatements, but it is my view that statements made in public by public men should be in accord with the facts.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to reply to the question asked him a few days ago regarding the leasing of some property on the Vancouver waterfront to Coal Harbour Investments Limited. At that time he said he would make a reply shortly. I do not want to take up the minister's time now, but can he give us any information on this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I did make a reply, either yesterday or the day before, at the very end of orders of the day. I do not blame the hon. gentleman for not noticing it because it was one of three replies which were made at the same time. My reply was to the effect that there would be no lease of this property to anyone without the approval of the city of Vancouver.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, August 28, 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
[Mr. Knowles.)
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. Speaker:: The hon. member for Battle
River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood).


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would call attention to the fact that the debate was adjourned last night by the Minister without Portfolio, and we should hear from him now.


Mr. Mandziuk:: If he has anything to say.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the Chair did not recognize him last night, although I notice that according to Hansard he did ask that it be declared six o'clock.


An hon. Member:: He must be out selling stickers.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, last night the Minister without Portfolio called it six o'clock, but evidently the hon. member's business has now become so important that he has not even time to stay in this house and complete his speech. We have always been looking for a label for the hon. gentleman, and I suggest we now call him the "minister of bumper stickers".
This letter which he sent to his colleagues is quite interesting and should be brought to the attention of this house. I have a photostat of the letter, which I should like to put on record. It says:
My dear Colleague:
If you are interested, I can procure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not like interrupting the hon. member, but a copy of this letter has been tabled today and is available to any hon. member who wishes to see it. We have had considerable discussion about it. Perhaps the hon. member would confine himself to the subamendment.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: On a point of order, this letter is referring to the subamendment because it deals with the three maple leaves flag which the hon. member is trying to advertise across this country. It is time some of this propaganda was brought to the attention of the Canadian people. This letter has to do with the three maple leaves flag and goes on to say:
-I can procure at a very special price: $25 per thousand stickers.. .of the proposed flag.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I believe that every member should sell at least 1,000 to the most important service stations In his riding. The garage manager could then distribute them to each client who buys at his station.
Thus, the result would be better (and would look less political) than if the member undertook this publicity himself.
In my riding I have already placed 12 orders of 1,000 in the gas stations of 12 different localities.
For information or orders call Mr. Gordon Marshall 992-2237. (Only those orders of 1,000 decals or more will be accepted).
The hon. member told his colleagues that he had a special price of $25 per thousand for the proposed maple leaf bumper stickers. I became very interested in this subject this morning and made a number of phone calls. I found one place where I could buy them for $21 per thousand. Where is the extra money going? Is that extra money going to be put in the Liberal campaign fund? Is that party going to benefit in this way by pushing a proposed flag down our throats? These are questions the Prime Minister should consider.
I think the situation is disgraceful. I suggest the Prime Minister and his cabinet are engaging in a propaganda campaign in respect of this flag. If the Prime Minister walked into this chamber now and withdrew his motion and placed the flag issue before a committee I would be glad to take my seat. If he does not do so I shall continue to speak on this resolution at this time, and perhaps speak again on four or five other occasions.
Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate the second time I feel I am doing so with great responsibility. I am supporting the retention of the red ensign or a slightly modified red ensign. Canada has prospered for 96 years under the red ensign. The people of Canada have lived together happily, and we have witnessed intermarriage among the French, English, Ukrainians and many other nationalities. I suggest there is no excuse for the Prime Minister or anyone else at this time to cause the dissension across this country that is now being caused.
Mr. Speaker, I have a resolution before me which I should like to read. This resolution states:
Whereas the red ensign as the flag of Canada, is the symbol of:
(1)	democracy,
(2)	parliamentary government,
(3)	justice and tolerance,
(4)	freedom of the individual,
(5)	freedom of worship,
(6)	educational opportunity for all,
Canadian Flag
(7)	initiative and industry,
and whereas, under this flag and these principles Canada has been developed, and whereas, the red ensign was chosen as the flag of Canada by authority of an order in council September 5, 1945, by the government of Canada, and whereas, it was the flag used by the Canadian forces in the last two wars, and now in Cyprus and also carried by the Canadian teams in the Olympic games,
Mr. Speaker, I am expressing the feelings of millions of people in this country when I speak in support of the red ensign. Statistics indicate that nine of the ten provinces in this great country of ours support the red ensign as Canada's national flag. I am sure the people in that other province would also accept the red ensign were it not for the brainwashing which has been done by extremists and university professors, such as we see sitting in the cabinet across from us today.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Conservative party are being accused of filibustering. Let me say that we are not filibustering but fighting on behalf of the people in Canada who support the retention of the red ensign. The members of this party seem to stand alone in this house on this flag issue. We do not have the support of the members of the party to our left. I have a great deal of respect for the leader of the New Democratic party. I know he comes from a part of this country which is in support of the red ensign. That part of the country is not receiving much support from the N.D.P. members in this house.
What has happened to that great parliamentarian, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who likes to hear himself, even though he must resort to phony points of privilege in order to put his remarks on record? I am sure his constituents are going to be unhappy about his position in this matter.
What has happened to that great Social Credit party next to us? I give the hon. member for Fraser Valley and the hon. member for Cariboo credit for at least rising in their places in this house and taking a stand. What have the rest of the members of that party done?
What has that great parliamentarian, the hon. member for Red Deer, had to say about the flag issue? Mr. Speaker, I have a Time magazine bearing the date August 28, 1964 before me. I suggest that it is in Time magazine that that hon. gentleman takes a position. He makes his position known outside this house. According to that article Bob Thompson, for one, is fed up. I have received a letter from a Social Credit supporter in

Canadian Flag
British Columbia who indicates that supporters there are fed up with Bob Thompson. The article in Time in part states that according to Bob Thompson:
"The Prime Minister and each of the minority party leaders were willing to come together on any reasonable compromise," he snapped. "Mr. Diefenbaker refused to consult with his own party-"
Mr. Speaker, that is a downright lie. I belong to that party, and we discussed this issue at each and every one of our caucuses. The hon. member for Red Deer should not make statements of that type across this country which are, as I repeat, downright lies. That hon. gentleman has contributed nothing to this debate. I know he comes from a red ensign supporting part of this country, yet he sits in his seat, when he is here, and contributes nothing to the debate except to hand out passes to a couple of undesirables to go in the gallery and throw blood on the floor at a time when our members were speaking in support of the red ensign.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it is in order for the hon. member to make such a vicious attack upon the leader of a party at a time when he is unable to be present.


An hon. Member:: Why is he not here?


Alexander Bell Patterson: My remarks would apply in respect of any hon. member, for that matter.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker I submit that is not a point of order. I am referring to that which appeared in a newspaper, sir. If an hon. member is not here it is not my responsibility. Perhaps I will not be here tomorrow. That hon. gentleman can read what is happening here as reported in Hansard, while out in his own constituency, and that is his decision.
The only sensible remark that has been made by a member of that party during this flag debate was made the night before last by the hon. member for Portneuf, who suggested that before individuals be allowed to stand for election they should be given I.Q. tests. I doubt very much that the hon. members over there would stand up to the I.Q. test.


An hon. Member:: You would never get back.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: If you want to make a speech go across the river and make it.
Mr. Speaker, let us hear from those members on the Liberal side of this house. We

would like to hear from the Ontario members. We have heard from the hon. member for York-Humber and the hon. member for York East, who at least got up on their feet and expressed their opinions. The rest of those hon. members have sat quiet.
The Prime Minister, as a result of poor advice, has placed before this parliament the three maple leaves design flag, as mentioned in the subamendment and the resolution. This flag is not acceptable across this country. Why was the Prime Minister in such a hurry to place this flag resolution before this parliament? Surely there is a great deal more important business that should be dealt with by this house. The hon. member for York-Humber told us that this design was not placed before them in that party, or mentioned in their caucus, but was brought in in a hurry shortly after the Minister of Forestry attended the Quebec conference. Does this flag resolution have something to do with the government's proposed pension plan?
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the flag issue represents one of the biggest blunders that any prime minister has made. He now finds himself with little support for his flag across this country. I suggest he should now give further consideration to this whole matter. He has suggested that the design proposed could not be mistaken for the flag of any other country.
He stated that our present flag is too much like the British merchant flag, and we should get away from that. On several occasions I have mentioned that I have looked through the flag book. I am not allowed to display this, but if anyone cares to come to my desk and look at this flag he will find that the Russian naval flag closely resembles the one proposed by the Prime Minister. It has a white fly, the hammer, sickle and star in red, and a blue band on the bottom. Are we going to throw out our red ensign because it looks like the British merchant flag and accept a flag with the colours of the Russian naval flag? No; we are going to put up a big fight before we have to accept this.
I wonder why the Prime Minister fell for these colours. When we asked for the tabling of the correspondence referring to the flag we found this letter, which says that the communist party supports the proposal for a new Canadian flag. I will not read all this letter but it also says "We urge you to reject the proposal for a plebiscite." I am going to leave this thought with you today, fellow members in this chamber and fellow Canadians across

this country. Think about these statements that have been put on the record today. If you doubt my word, get a flag book and take a look at that Russian naval flag. Then there is that communication. I am going to tell you today that if something is not done about this flag, if we are going to have this flag forced down our throats, then the next speech I make will be one in which I will put a lot more documents on the record and there will be some people with red faces before we are through.


Mr. Godin:: After?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You did enough yapping yesterday. If you just sit on your seat and keep your brains warm you will be a lot better off. Nothing has split this country more than this flag issue. This process was started under the B and B commission, and now we have the flag issue to add to it. As stated by the hon. member for York-Humber earlier, there was no mention of the flag anywhere but in the province of Quebec. Out west we were offered $2 wheat, and I suppose in the maritimes they were offered a larger amount for fish or lumber. The people of Quebec resent the fact that they are being used as tools for political purposes. I have talked to many people from the province of Quebec. The French Canadians are fine people, and I have a great many friends amongst them. I have been through the province of Quebec, and when you get to the rural areas you find the farming people very friendly. They would like to see this government do something for them. They cannot eat a flag, but they could do with some assistance to agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture has not the legislation prepared yet, so we have to fight over this flag.
Only the other night several good French Canadians told me they were being embarrassed by the actions of these intellectuals, these Creditistes and the people who are speaking about the desire for this new flag. Quebec has a fleur-de-lis flag. Premier Lesage says this new flag will be their second flag.


An hon. Member:: What about the third one?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Well, the Prime Minister will give them a third one, too.


Osias.-J. Godin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. member tell the house where verification can be found for his statement about Premier Lesage? Was the statement made to him?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: That is no question of privilege.
Canadian Flag


William Skoreyko: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: We already have one question of privilege.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: That is a phony point of order; he is usually yapping on these points of order.


Osias.-J. Godin: This is a point of order. A member of this house is required to substantiate any declaration he has made by giving the source of that declaration.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: If you had to substantiate your thoughts or declarations you would have a hard time, because you do not have any thoughts. I said I wanted to speak in support of the red ensign. I should like to place on record a portion of an open letter to the Prime Minister from Winnipeg:
Dear Sir:
Mr. Pearson, in his latest speech on the "Nation's Business", stressed two points: 1, the need for Canadian unity-2, the need for a "distinctive" Canadian flag.
Regarding the first point, i.e. the need for Canadian unity, everybody knows that the public controversy aroused to date by the introduction of Mr. Pearson's flag has reduced Canadian unity to the lowest ebb in our history.
Regarding the second point, i.e. the need for a "distinctive" Canadian flag, only Mr. Pearson seems to be unaware of the fact that we have in the red ensign one of the most distinctive flags in the world. Where it flies on Canadian embassies, no one fails to recognize it as Canadian. Only Mr. Pearson seems to doubt this. Yet Mr. Pearson's flag possesses no distinctiveness whatsoever, and can in no way be compared with our nation's flag, the Canadian red ensign.
I would say to hon. members here today that if they consider we do not have a distinctive flag they should go over to the front of the west block, walk up and down and look at the flags displayed there. They will see that the Canadian flag stands out from all the others that are there.
Here is a letter now to Right Hon. John Diefenbaker:
Dear Mr. Diefenbaker:
We have been greatly encouraged by your last pronouncement on the "Nation's Business" on television regarding the flag issue, and also by the news report that your party is continuing the fight for the red ensign.
The loss of the red ensign would cause a split in our nation such as we have never known before. This split added to the Pearson bicultural rift could spell the ruination of our future as a nation.
We believe that if the people of Canada fully understood the traditions represented by the symbols on the red ensign, they would overwhelmingly endorse its retention as our flag.
You and your party are our last hope for preserving unity. We, therefore, thank you for your continuing efforts on behalf of the great majority of Canadians.

Canadian Flag
These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, for our support of this flag. There are more letters that I could read, but I see my time is nearly exhausted. I say, sir, this matter is becoming serious. Something must be done. The government got itself into this problem by trying to force the maple leaf flag on the Canadian people when they are not prepared to accept it. The next move is up to the Prime Minister. I am reminded of the old proverb which says he who is on the wrong track and will not turn back is a fool. I say to the government, you are on the wrong track and it is time you turned back and withdrew this resolution. You should accept the recommendation for a committee or a plebiscite or some means of letting the Canadian people choose the distinctive flag they want.
We hear a lot about our flag not being distinctive and not being known throughout the world, but I have a picture here of our soldiers over in France and the red ensign is flying as they march by. The time has come for the government to give very serious consideration to withdrawing the flag resolution. The Prime Minister will be looked upon across Canada with a great deal more respect than he is today if he does that, because people will know he has realized he made a mistake and is man enough to acknowledge it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would stand aside for the hon. member for Greenwood, who spoke to me about his wish to make reference to a sentence in somebody else's speech, which in my opinion he has the right to do under standing order 37, which says:
No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood-
I understand he will be very brief, and that it is in the nature of a correction.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That is what I desire to do, to take brief advantage of the opportunity presented by standing order 37. Yesterday during the debate on this matter the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, as recorded at page 7304 of Hansard, made the following statement:
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.
In the very brief contribution I did make to this debate a few days ago I did not disown the red ensign. In fact, on the contrary I specifically proposed that the red ensign be officially recognized as a symbol in Canada of the commonwealth. But what is a lot more important is the statement by the hon. member that I disowned the historic connection of the Anglican church with the red ensign.
So far as I know the Anglican church at no time has taken any stand whatsoever on what would be a suitable flag for Canada, and has no historic connection with the red ensign. There is no such thing as Anglican orthodoxy on this issue and the hon. member, as an Anglican, has just as much right to his view as I, another Anglican, have to disagree with him. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have only one or two more sentences. I would like to remind hon. members in this house-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order. This, I understand, is a point of privilege which the hon. member is raising?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, it is. Both the hon. member and I did not think it was important enough to raise right at the opening of the sitting, and I suggested to him that inasmuch as it concerned the flag debate he could ask the indulgence of the house for two or three minutes to correct what he believed was a misinterpretation of his statements.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It seems a bit odd to me that rebuttal of statements made in the course of debate should be done by way of privilege on this occasion. Surely the hon. member can participate again and deal with any remarks made in the course of debate here by way of rebuttal. All he is doing now is smuggling in a rebuttal by way of a question of privilege. I think this is quite wrong. If it is to be the established practice of the house, then it is open to all members to do the same on any occasion when something is said with which they disagree. The hon. member should take his opportunity in the debate, and there will be other opportunities for him to make a rebuttal.


Mr. Speaker:: The last part of standing order 37(1) says:
-but then he is not to introduce any new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.

I was interrupted for a moment, but I understood the non. member was trying to explain a material part of his speech which may have been misconstrued or misunderstood, and I am sure if the hon. member would stick to that we would have no more trouble.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I just have one or two more things to say, and that is what I was trying to do, to say I was misunderstood by the hon. member who said I had somehow or other abandoned Anglican tradition. I was about to finish my remarks by pointing out that the Anglican church of Canada itself, when it adopted its own flag or emblem, which I believe was approved by statute in this house, had incorporated in its emblem not one, not three, but in fact four maple leaves, coloured green, not red, and they were not conjoined. But there is no Anglican tradition that requires people of loyalty to the Anglican church to adopt any particular flag, and I deplore my hon. friend interjecting into this debate the reference to some supposed religious orthodoxy on the matter before the house.
The particular church we are both discussing has broadened out so that the old jibe is no longer true, that the Anglican church was the Tory party at prayer. I do not think we should have that suggestion.


John George Diefenbaker: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of order. The hon. gentleman knows very well that type of statement has no place whatsoever after he has participated in debate. While interested, as one of Baptist persuasion always is in questions of ecclesiastical orthodoxy, I do not think even that fact justifies what the hon. gentleman has done.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate because I believe the concern I feel is shared literally by millions of Canadians. My concern is for something more than the various flags we are discussing; my concern is for parliament itself.
I dearly wish it were possible for some kind of mirror to be installed so that all of us in this parliament could see what it looks like during the course of this debate. If we cannot do that at least I feel we should pay some attention to the reports we are getting from our people back home, the pleadings that are reaching us that we discipline ourselves to the point of reaching a decision on the matters that are now before us.
20220-464J
Canadian Flag
Last Saturday I had the privilege of spending the day in a lovely rural town in my own province of Manitoba. On that day I was not in my own constituency; I was in the constituency of my friend the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns). It is an area that is Conservative. There was not any question amongst the people whom I met-and I met a good many at a social function

as to which flag they wanted. They wanted the red ensign.
But, Mr. Speaker, there was not a person present at the function I attended last Saturday in this Conservative red ensign area who did any flag waving or pressed upon me any ideas so far as the flag was concerned. Every person who spoke to me asked "What's wrong with parliament? What's wrong with you people down there that you talk on and on and on? Are you crazy? Have you got no sense, no discipline, no concern for what the people of the country think about parliament?"
My purpose in rising is to urge all of us in this house to take a very close look at ourselves and at what we are doing by this protracted debate, and by the character of the debate at times-people can read Hansard for this afternoon-to the institution of parliament itself. I plead with all my friends in the house in all parties, whatever may be their views on the flag, to realize that there is something more important than winning this debate, winning an issue, or seeing that one leader triumphs over the other. That more important goal is to maintain the dignity and the integrity and the importance of parliament itself. Hon. members know that I am a strong advocate of-


Mr. Bigg:: Hairsplitting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -finding ways and means of disciplining ourselves so that we do not have protracted debates. That is so well known that I do not need to expand upon proposals I have made for the allocation of time by agreement. But hon. members also know it is my firm view that once a debate has started the rules cannot be changed in the middle of it; you cannot even use standing order 33, the rule for closure, without doing irreparable damage to parliament. And I say to hon. members, even to those who by continuing this debate are taking a course which I deplore, that if closure is imposed I will oppose it, because I think closure does damage to the institution of parliament. But I ask hon. members not to shelter behind the knowledge that closure will not be imposed, or behind the knowledge

Canadian Flag
that enough of us will be opposed to the application of closure. I ask them not to continue with the kind of protracted debate which can do nothing but bring parliament into discredit and disgrace in the eyes of the Canadian people.
This is supposed to be the most important institution in Canada. This is where 19 million Canadians govern themselves.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: On a point of order, the hon. member is simply preaching at us.


William Skoreyko: On a point of order, I understand that this house is engaged in a debate on a flag design. We are now being given just another superfluous lecture on the rules. We are well acquainted with the rules which govern this house. Let the hon. member tell us where he stands on the flag issue. That is the question before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I ask anybody to read the speeches which have been made in this debate during the last few days and tell me what can possibly be out of order. Everything has been discussed. But the fact is that I am discussing this debate itself and I am asking hon. members to recognize that, important though they feel the subject is, there is something even more important, namely parliament itself.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is giving us what amounts to a lecture. We are supposed to be considering the flag issue, and here we have a lecture from this would-be schoolteacher who talks about a filibuster yet forgets that his own party filibustered for two years on the divorce issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has been generous in allowing a wide range of introductory remarks, and that applies to all members of the house in all parties. I do not see where the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is out of order at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not resent the suggestion by the hon. member for Athabasca that I may be indulging in a little preaching. But if I am doing so, I am preaching to all of us in this house, no matter to what parties we belong or what stand we take on the flag issue. I am pleading that we recognize the importance of the institution as well as of the subject we are debating.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Let the tailor tailor the cloth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have done a little arithmetic to ascertain just what has been taking place in this debate. If my counting is accurate, and I believe it is, this is the sixteenth day of

debate on the flag. During the 15 sitting days of debate which ended last night we had a total of 125 speakers. The breakdown-and the Prime Minister was asked a question about this on the orders of the day but he did not have the answers-is as follows: 3 from the Ralliement Creditiste; 7 from the Social Credit party; 5 from the New Democratic party; 28 from the Liberal party and 82 from the Conservative party.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Just what part of the subamendment are you speaking on?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the subamendment was moved by the hon. member for Regina City there have been 64 speeches. Until last night -I have not counted speeches made today- the breakdown is as follows: Social Credit, 4; New Democratic party, 2; Liberals, 7; Progressive Conservatives, 51.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This represents a fair amount of discussion on this issue; a total of 125 speakers, 82 in one party and 43 in all the others. But this is not all the time we have spent on this flag issue. On a total of 31 different days questions on orders of the day have been asked about the flag, and on a minimal basis the number of those questions is 145. In this figure I have not included second or third questions asked by any one member on the same day. In other words, all I have counted is the number of individuals who have stood on orders of the day to ask questions about the flag, whether one, two, three or whatever may have been the case.


Robert Simpson: What was the breakdown there?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry; I do not have the breakdown, but I will work that out as well. In addition, we have spent three private members' hours between five and six o'clock on matters relating to the flag. The flag question was also discussed in four of the overtime periods after ten o'clock or 10.30 p.m. Added to that, there were several points of order and questions of privilege involving the flag issue.
I suggest the evidence is overwhelming that we have thoroughly discussed this flag question from all its various angles, and that it ought to be possible for reasonable, grown people, after so much discussion, after so many days of deliberation, after all these attacks on the problem, to reach a decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me we should consider the amount of time we are spending on this item in the light of our responsibility to the other measures which have to come before us. There is a long list of things on the order paper-


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question of the hon. member?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member talks about other matters which should come before us. Why are they not before us? The government refuses to bring its legislation forward. It refuses to deal with the main estimates. It says "The flag issue, and nothing else".


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a good question to put to the government. I shall have something to say on that in a moment if the hon. gentleman will possess himself in patience. But I suggest that all of us have to take some responsibility. If we spend so much time on one issue, we are not able to get on to the others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is something else that is happening because we are spending so much time on this issue-and we spend time on all issues, apparently, in this parliament 

and that is that we are abdicating our responsibilities as the elected parliament of Canada. There was an article about the establishment in the current issue of Maclean's magazine, by Peter Newman, that everybody is reading with interest. We are turning the government of Canada over to the establishment; we are getting rid of democracy by making parliament a sideshow that deals with things which are less important than the major issues that are before this country.
I plead with hon. members of this house to realize what we are doing, by the way in which we are carrying on this debate. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that any effort to impose any kind of closure on this debate will meet with my opposition. The rules for debate as they were when this debate started must remain until this debate is over. I ask hon. members not to confuse that with the efforts I am making regarding future debates; but I say that so far as this debate is concerned closure must not be applied to it. I plead with hon. members of the official opposition if they are not concerned about the image of the government, if they are not concerned about the fortunes of the party on the other
Canadian Flag
side, to be concerned about the image of parliament itself.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should be very glad to.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the hon. member not agree that when the government or the executive pursues an arbitrary and a divisive course in its policy, the only recourse of the legislature is a continuation of discussion; and is this not the course that his party pursued in connection with divorce matters?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some members of my party pursued that course with respect to that matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. Don't get so excited; I didn't come to parliament yesterday. This whole party took that position with respect to the pipe line debate in 1956. As my hon. friend knows, what he has said is right in principle, and I will assert it; that if a government is trying to do something that members feel is completely inimical to everything the nation stands for-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -yes, those who take that position should use what weapons they have at their disposal to try and prevent that happening. But I say two things to them. They must be sure they are right in the stand they take; and the other thing is that they must also remember there is such a thing as the right of a parliamentary body to make a decision.
My hon. friends of the Conservative opposition keep talking about the minority government ramming something down their throats. May I say to them that by their continuing this debate they are preventing a decision being taken; they are preventing our being given an opportunity to move an amendment for a single maple leaf, as they know we wish to do; they are preventing proper parliamentary procedures; they are preventing parliament from making a decision; they are preventing us from getting at other business; they are preventing us from running the country; they are turning things over to the establishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Now we see the plot.


William Skoreyko: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat-

Canadian Flag


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry; I have not taken my seat.


William Skoreyko: Well, I am on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right.


William Skoreyko: The hon. member said that because this debate is being prolonged the government is being prevented from dealing with other business. It is my understanding, as it is his, that the Prime Minister of this country said that as soon as this debate was over we were going to take a recess. If the Conservative party prefers to put responsibility before recess, then we will stand the consequences.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I remind my hon. friend from Edmonton that the time for the recess has just about gone. May I also remind him that one day a week or so ago the Prime Minister, in response to questions we asked him, did agree that if we got this debate over during the time a recess was still supposed to come, he would bring on the pension legislation and let it go through the first stages so it could go to a committee before any recess. I submit that the argument that we are merely depriving ourselves of a recess no longer holds water; the recess time has gone and we all know there is not going to be any recess. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since we are here to do the business of the country, I think it is up to us to discipline ourselves so that we pay some attention to the business that really deserves our attention.
I want to say some things about this debate to the two main groups in this House of Commons. I am going to address myself first to the Progressive Conservative party and then I am going to address myself to the government.


Auguste Choquette: What about the Speaker?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) has made a very important objection.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, I think it might result in better progress in the house if we were to listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) without continued interruption.


Auguste Choquette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is obliged to address himself to the Speaker and not to the Liberals or the Conservatives.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoyed the interruption made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, who is technically correct. I was speaking in a rhetorical sense. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make certain suggestions to the members of the official opposition and then to the government and to its supporters. I trust the hon. member for Lotbiniere will agree with my putting it that way.


Frank John William Fane: That was his first lucid remark.


Stanley Howard Knowles: First of all, Mr. Speaker- and I hope my Conservative friends will take this seriously, even if they do not like its coming from me-I believe they owe us in the house and they owe the country an honest, straightforward statement as to what their purposes and their intentions are in this debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, Mr. Speaker, "honest" has an unfortunate imputation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) does not like my use of the word "honest", so I will take it out. I ask for a straightforward statement by the Conservatives of their intentions and purposes in this debate. Maybe there is some other intention than the two that occur to me, but it seems to me it is one or the other.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: What are yours?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am trying to get parliament back on the rails.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One intention of the Conservative party in carrying on the debate at length

and the statistics I gave can hardly be denied-may be to discuss the matter thoroughly and fully, to bring up all the angles, to go into the matter from every possible aspect. That is a legitimate purpose. But if that is the purpose of the Conservatives, let them say so. If that is their purpose, they should be willing to agree to extended hours of sitting so there can be time for that full debate they feel to be necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is their purpose, Mr. Speaker, I call upon them to say so and to take a position consistent with that purpose. On the other hand, if their purpose is to prolong the debate so as to prevent a decision being taken, I think they should say so, not only to us out in the halls-where they do say it to us-but here on the floor of the house.

If it is their intention to keep this debate going through all of September and into October; if it is their intention to keep it going until we get to the next interim supply time and thus force the government either to suspend the flag debate or to ditch it, I think they should say so.
If they have a purpose other than these two, then that is for them to say. But for us to go on from day to day and for parliament and the country not to know what this chamber is being used for is not fair to parliament, is not fair to the country and is not fair to the great history of this nation. I call upon them to tell us which of these purposes they are pursuing.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: The ensign is part of that history.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is their purpose full and free debate? If so, we will co-operate in providing the extra hours to make this possible. But if it is to prevent a decision, let them say so, in order that the house may know where it is and what it has to cope with.
Now through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to say something to the government. If it is declared to be the purpose of the official opposition to have full and free debate, and if that is straightforwardly their position, I think the government should co-operate by providing the extra hours so that we can take a full decision. The government should make the declaration, in addition, that there will be no closure or any attempt to foreclose this debate.


Mr. Forbes:: We have already seen through that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is nothing to be seen through. I am speaking frankly and openly, and it is plain to be seen if hon. members will look at it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are on extended hours now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) says we have extended hours now, and that is right. But if the purpose is simply to have a free debate in order for us at some point to get to other matters, I suggest that we should be willing to extend the hours still further. We in this party are prepared to do that and I hope there might be the necessary consent to make it possible.
If the other reason for continuing this debate is the true purpose-if the aim is to prevent the making of a decision and that is
Canadian Flag
made clear by the Conservatives-then I suggest it is up to the government to face that situation and to try to decide what to do about it.
I have three suggestions to make to the government. I have already made the first one but let me put it in different language.
I suggest that the government should be prepared to sit it out. By that I mean that the government must eschew-I was accused of being a preacher so perhaps I can use that word-any thought of closure in any form. It must sit this debate out.
The second suggestion I make to the government is that it must keep the door open for any kind of conference which will resolve the issue. The last time the Prime Minister made a statement on the meetings of the party leaders he did say something to that effect at the end of his remarks-that the door would still be open. I plead that that door be kept wide open and that at any time when it is possible a conference should be held, either on the debate itself or on the design of a flag. It seems to me that referring the matter to a committee-unless all five men get together and agree on it-is just delaying the issue. If there is any chance of the five leaders getting together on some kind of compromise on the design, I hope that such a conference might be held at any time.
The hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) who spoke earlier this afternoon asked me whether I was having any correspondence with the Legion in Winnipeg with regard to my position on this flag. Yes, I have had correspondence with the Legion officials in Winnipeg. It is the kind of correspondence which goes back and forth between people who, if they have different views, still respect each other. If I had known that that reference was going to be made I would have brought down with me the last letter I had from the Legion. There was one sentence in the last letter which I had from the Legion in Winnipeg which struck me rather forcibly. The writer of the letter, who was one of the officials of the Legion in Winnipeg, said to me- this was when he thought the issue was just about over-"It is too bad there could not have been some kind of compromise". I congratulate the Legion wholeheartedly for that position. I think it is wrong to suggest that the Legion is an uncompromising organization. In the Legion's own language is the comment that it is too bad there has not been a compromise. I urge the government to keep the door open for a conference at any

Canadian Flag
time, either between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition or among the five party leaders, so as to achieve some kind of compromise which will produce a design. Toward that end, despite what has been said here, I am not concerning myself in these remarks with the design of the flag, because I do not think that is as important as finding a way to resolve the issue and thus save the good name of parliament.
There is one other suggestion I would make to the government, and I make it in as pleading terms as I possibly can. All of this is based on the second premise that the Conservative party will tell us that its purpose is to prevent action being taken. If that is the case then I urge the government not only to sit it out with no thought of closure, keeping the door open for conferences to take place, but also to arrange that from now on the flag debate take place on only three days a week. I should like to point out that I am trying to be reasonable and I am suggesting a practical proposition. I therefore propose that from now on we have one day a week on estimates, as is now the case, three days a week on the flag, and the other day, which I suggest be Monday, on other legislation. There is the Canada pension plan.


Richard Elmer Forbes: It is not ready.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is redistribution. There is the railway legislation and there is the Bank Act. There is all kinds of other legislation. My hon. friend says it is not ready, but I urge the government to get it ready. The government did say a week or so ago that if this debate is over before the proposed recess we might have the pension plan. Let us get at that, and also at the national labour code. These matters have been promised since the start of the session and the list is a long one.
I believe that if there is no option but to sit out a long debate on this issue, with the resultant damage which I feel is being done to parliament in the eyes of the people, we could correct that image considerably and improve our position a great deal if each week while this debate continues we spend one day on estimates and one day on these other important items of legislation. Then if hon. members knew that the session was being planned in that way there would be no temptation to protract the debate on other legislation on Mondays or to protract the debate on the estimates on Fridays. In this way we could start to redeem ourselves and

get some business through and make things look a lot better than they do now.
I do not mind the interjections and the points of order which have been raised during the course of my speech; a speech like this is bound to invite the kind of comments I have heard because I have been treading on toes. But I hope I have been treading on toes of members on both sides of the house. I understand the position of a government faced with a protracted debate- and I am not using that awful word that people do not like to hear-which is spelled out by the statistics I have given. Even if the government feels this is wrong and that it is being dealt with unfairly by the opposition, it is still the government. It is still responsible for parliament and it is still responsible to the people of the country for this institution, and it should lean over backwards to take the kind of steps which will make this parliament look much better than it has looked over these past three or four months when discussing this issue. The best way to do that is for everyone to agree to let the debate end and get on with other business. If we cannot do that, then I call on the government to accept the proposal which I have made and to limit the flag debate to three days a week, with one day on other legislation and one day on estimates. If we do this kind of thing and hold conferences among the house leaders regarding business, conferences on redistribution and on the Canada pension plan, and leaders' conferences on the flag, because we are reasonable and grown up people, I believe can do something to save this institution and make this present parliament, not one which will look bad in Canadian history but one which might yet be regarded as one of the better parliaments in the history of this country.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be delighted.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the hon. member not see that there is a principle involved in the flag debate, the principle being the preservation of our history and traditions, as exemplified in the Canadian flag which some people are anxious to discard?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think a much greater principle is involved. I do not find fault with those who feel as they do about certain designs for a flag, but I feel that the institution of parliamentary democracy is far more important, and it is that which we should primarily aim to save.


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also agree that there is a further principle involved? We have heard a great deal from the official opposition in respect of a free vote. Would the hon. member not agree that hon. members should be allowed a free vote, and that this issue should be allowed to come to a vote?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered that question earlier in my remarks. I think that parliament should, after a reasonable amount of discussion, have the opportunity of making a decision. I also think that some of the rest of us should have an opportunity to put our proposals before this house. Technically speaking, although the debate has wandered all over the place, we have been debating since June 15 a Conservative amendment and a Conservative subamendment. We would like a chance to debate a New Democratic party amendment to the main motion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: At what length?


Stanley Howard Knowles: For a reasonable length of time. I think one or two days would be sufficient.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit one more question? Does he not realize that the proceedings of this house, as well as the legislation that is brought before it, is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, and that when such legislation bogs down it could be completed almost immediately if the Prime Minister would allow this matter to be referred to a committee?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I accept the point made by the hon. member for Wellington South, that the responsibility for organizing the business of the house and for what happens in the house rests with the government. That is why I made my appeal to the government, that being faced with these difficulties in respect of this subject it ought not require parliament to spend all week on it. I think the committee idea is a possible one, but apparently the five leaders cannot agree on the terms of reference and the various arrangements. That is why I called upon the Prime Minister and the government to keep the door open for conferences of this kind.
If my hon. friend feels I have directed most of my fire against those who have kept this debate going, perhaps he is right; but I have also called upon the government, in spite of
Canadian Flag
the feeling it may have that it is facing difficulties, and facing the kind of position it ought not to have to face, to realize that it is still the government's responsibility to find a way out of this mess. I believe if the government accepted my proposal, that one day a week be used for legislation, one day a week for estimates and three days a week for the flag debate, with the absolute understanding that there would be no closure of any kind, we would get along much better. Perhaps it would not be long under those circumstances before we could reach an agreement on a proper modus operandi.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman not think in fairness to the Prime Minister he should have reminded the hon. member for Wellington South that the Prime Minister indicated he and the leaders of the three smaller parties were agreeable to forming a committee; if there was a reasonable time limit on its deliberations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked that question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking to a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Has the right hon. gentleman not already spoken?


John George Diefenbaker: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have not already spoken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope these remarks will be counted as his speech.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I advise the hon. gentleman that his summary is entirely incorrect. As far as the suggestion made by the other hon. gentleman, that his plan would be one that could be acceptable, I rise also to say that we will fall in line with that 100 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. gentleman replies, and since this discussion is being treated as a question of privilege, and my accuracy has been contested, I point out that when the Prime Minister gave his report, the leaders of the three smaller parties spoke, and the right hon. gentleman

Canadian Flag
.spoke. At the end of that statement the Prime Minister indicated that he had accepted the principle of establishing a committee, if there was a reasonable time limit placed on its deliberation. The right hon. gentleman himself confirmed what the Prime Minister had said.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that Hansard will reveal the situation more clearly. There were two points made. I took the stand with respect to such a committee, that in view of the fact that the Liberal party has its major ally in the Creditistes, who are 100 per cent in support of removing the union jack, and that with two or three exceptions the general view held by the members of each of the other parties was that the union jack should be removed, while this party stands in favour of preservation of that part, of our heritage and the heritage as well of the French, if the majority of that committee was to make a decision, the decision would be made before the committee started, on the basis of the representation on such a committee. If the decision was to be based on an 80 or 90 per cent basis, and that is the only way in which a flag should be imposed on the people, we would gladly accept that suggestion. That is our stand now. However, to say that whatever report the committee brought in and if it was only a majority decision, the debate should be limited, would mean that we are beaten in advance in respect of the stand we are taking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since my veracity has been questioned I feel I should put on record again the words used by the Prime Minister on August 21, which will be found at page 7113 of Hansard. The Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am in order, but I did not make any statement except on the facts of what occurred at the meetings. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition-and I am not complaining at all about it-referred to the suggestion that a committee should be established to look into this question. I think I ought to put on record that we on this side are not opposed to such a committee, but we do not think such a committee should meet for an indefinite period of time and thereby unduly delay this matter. In addition, we believe that the report of this committee should be subject to a time limitation of debate when it is received by the house.
In other words it is perfectly clear that the government as well as the leaders of the other three parties-quite a substantial majority of this house-were in favour of having a committee with a time limit, and a time limit on the debate afterwards. The right hon. gentleman uses words seeking to distort what
IMr. Pickersgill.]
was said, but he will not be able to distort the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to engage in an argument with the hon.
gentleman, but when it comes to distortion, he is the past grand master.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not even in the same league.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right, you are in
the bush league.
Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is this. There were two principles advanced in respect of the establishment of a committee. We believe that a committee could meet and consider this matter. I said three months should be the period beyond which a committee should not meet. The Prime Minister, as I recall, and I am speaking from memory, said that he thought three weeks, or thereabouts, would be sufficient. I said they should have a free vote, and then if the recommendation made by that committee was substantially unanimous there could be no question as to whether we would agree to a limitation on debate in respect of that committee's report. The view of the other leaders generally was that the usual rule should apply and that a majority should be sufficient. If we accept that and allow the 15 members of that committee to decide the issue we might just as well not have a committee at all, because it would consist of seven Liberals and one representative of each of the other parties. If only one of those members, perhaps the Creditiste member whose party is entirely united, were to decide in favour of removing the union jack and having no vestige of the union jack in the flag, then the committee would simply end there and then. When the matter came back to the house under those circumstances, we would not accept this recommendation. However, if it were substantially unanimous, there would certainly be a limitation and we would be glad to accept a limitation on the basis of a decision of a committee like that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise simply to refer to the question the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) asked me, and which started this last bit of demonstration. He asked me if I would make certain remarks about the position of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). I thought I had implied that in what I said, and if I did not imply it, then it has now been put on the record.
There is nothing more for me to put on the record with regard to that, but I should like to say that we have had a demonstration

in the last few minutes of what we all know to be a fact, namely that we are at an impasse; horns are locked and we are in a difficult situation. In the name of all that is right in terms of parliamentary procedure, in the name of the people of Canada, I plead that we find a way out of this. Others have made suggestions, and I made some this afternoon which I hope will be taken seriously by the Prime Minister and by others, despite what has been said.
If I might summarize them quickly, I ask the members of the official opposition to state clearly their intentions; then I ask the government to take these intentions into consideration. If it is the second intention, namely to go on at length, then I urge the government to do three things: One, sit it out without any resort to closure of any kind; two, keep the door open for conferences and compromises; three, plan the week's business in the way I suggested, one day on other legislation, three days on the flag and a day on estimates. I believe if we did this we might start to make some progress.


John George Diefenbaker: Accepted here and now; it is up to the government.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I listened with amazement, as I am sure many other members did, to the lecture we just received from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Of all the people who should be lecturing the house about taking up the time of parliament, he should be the last. I should like to draw attention to the fact that in the 1952-53 session he took up one third of Hansard. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that when an hon. member gets up to speak in this fashion he should practise what he preaches. I should like also to draw your attention to the index from February 18 to July 31 in which you will find there are three full pages given to headings under the name of Mr. Stanley Knowles. The hon. member said that when he was referring to members taking a long time he might be stepping on people's toes, but I suggest instead of that he is stumbling over his own toes. In other words, he is asking for a double standard, one for himself and one for the other members of the house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, had I been given the opportunity to conclude my remarks the last time I spoke on this issue it would not have been necessary for me to take part in the debate at this stage. However, since no one on the treasury benches has replied to the questions I put to them concerning the new
Canadian Flag
flag, and since no satisfactory explanation has been given to the country as to why we should be seeking to scrap our present proud flag, I feel these questions should be placed on the record again. I feel this very strongly, particularly since there has been little or no attempt on the part of government members to justify their stand on the flag. They show no great concern for the effect that the proposed political flag is having on our national unity. I should like also to look into the matter of the so-called free vote that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) now says will be taken on any division on the flag issue. I think one of his supporters, the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) expressed it very well when he said a resolution proposed by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) could not be considered other than a government measure, that it would be regarded as such during any vote that would be taken by his colleagues on the government side. The only way in which a free vote could have been achieved would have been for the Prime Minister to ask one of his private members to introduce the resolution. Had this procedure been followed, I am quite sure the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Mathe-son), who is a co-designer of the Prime Minister's pennant, would have welcomed the opportunity. He may have had some reservations because he is reported to have expressed some doubts as to its proper heraldry. I am sorry the hon. member is not in the house this afternoon-he was earlier-but I am equally sure the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) would have been glad to act as seconder. His great contribution to the flag debate has been recorded in Hansard by a series of, "Oh, oh's".
Now, the little matter of heraldry does not seem to bother the designer commissioned by the Prime Minister to design a flag for him. He is reported also in the press as saying that anyone who did not like the blue edges could cut them off. It does not seem to bother the Prime Minister because, in answer to a question he said Canadians could fly any flag they like. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it probably would be much more appropriate if the government were to give to each Canadian a new flagpole rather than a new flag.
While the matter of the flag that Canadians may fly is not too important to some people, I find that the majority of the people with whom I have talked or corresponded have a deep regard for our present national

Canadian Flag
flag. This is particularly true of those who suffered the deprivations, illness, the humility and degradation of the prisoner of war camps. During a recent visit to my home constituency I talked to a Hong Kong veteran who had spent a long period in the prisoner of war compound on the island. He said he will never forget, nor will the Canadians with him ever forget, the day when the red ensign was once more raised on the flagpole over the prisoner of war compound. He said they knew on that day that freedom had come to them once again, and that peace and justice again walked hand in hand across the land once more.
I have with me a couple of typical telegrams which I have received from my local Legions. I think a lot of hon. members have received similar telegrams. One of these was sent to myself and the other is a copy of one sent to the Prime Minister. I believe that the Legions, their families and friends are, generally speaking, wholeheartedly in favour of retaining our present flag, and this is what the first telegram says:
The Crystal City Legion have not changed their stand on regards red ensign and expect your full support.
The other telegram sent to the Prime Minister, with a copy to myself, says:
It is the desire of the Canadian Legion branch No. 21 Manitou, Manitoba, that the red ensign be the national flag of Canada.
If a flag is to have any meaning it must symbolize first of all the people's pride in the nation's past achievements. It must symbolize their love of country at the present and their hopes and aspirations for its future. The part now so recklessly being played by the government with regard to our national unity will foster bitterness and division at the time harmony is so urgently required within the nation itself. Harmony is needed, not so much because we have to face any insurmountable problem but because we have lowered our eyes from the horizon of future greatness to quarrel and oppose each other over the picayune issues of the present.
In this regard I would like to read a news item from the Ottawa Citizen, reporting an interview with a visiting member of parliament from Britain, who discussed this very aspect of Canadian life. The article's heading is, "U.K. M.P. says petty issues hurt Canada," and it reads:
Sir Edwin Leather, a Canadian born member of the British house of commons for 15 years, said Wednesday Canada faces a frightening domestic problem.

The Conservative M.P., bom in Hamilton, said the problem is that Canada has no really serious problems and petty issues thus are debated by government officials.
"The most worrisome part of it is the contempt many Canadians are expressing against their government," he said in an interview.
"And with the (French Canadian) separatist movement making itself heard, petty issues could tear the country apart because no one cares enough to do anything about it."
The Prime Minister by introducing the flag issue into the political affairs of the country at this time is contributing to that image of bitterness that the hon. gentleman mentioned, and is only adding fuel to the heat already engendered by other elements not too interested in national unity. His own members are taking little part in the debate, except to heckle as though it is of no consequence. They are accusing the opposition of a filibuster and in this way they hope to convince the Canadian people that we are wasting parliament's time. They also hope by these tactics to win the debate by default. Let me assure them here and now, and I am quite sure they will get this assurance from other members in this party, that they are not going to win anything this way. The Prime Minister has got them into the mess and he had better start looking for ways to get them out.
Now I have something to say in regard to a filibuster. The Winnipeg Tribune in an editorial in its issue of Friday, August 21, had this to say about the filibuster:
Filibuster of Silence.
The word "filibuster" may acquire a new political connotation before the flag issue is resolved. The Prime Minister used the word in the house August 4 to describe the tactics of the opposition, and it has been employed with increasing frequency by those in sympathy with his desperate plight in parliament.
Oxford defines the word as meaning obstructionist. Mr. Pearson apparently intends it to mean "refusal to enter a debate." Hansard confirms this for there is no debate taking place.
Some eloquent and profound speeches have been made by members of the opposition but the government benches remain silent except for occasional hoots.
Nick Mandziuk (P.C.-Marquette) succinctly defined the parliamentary situation on August 12. In reply to an interjection he said:
"A filibuster of silence."
The opposition has offered the government many pertinent observations, has requested answers to perplexing questions, has invited participation in resolving sensitive problems, and has explored national unity, national history, and national purpose.
But the government supporters refuse to discuss any of these subjects. As an historical episode it will make sad reading for the Canadians of tomorrow when they learn how a government attempted to convert parliament into a flag-making factory.
The opposition's speeches at least will serve as a valuable record on what thoughtful politicians

had to say about the state of our country in 1964. There will scarcely be a word of what government supporters thought for all Hansard has to record about them is: "Some MEMBERS-Oh, oh. Some MEMBERS-Filibuster."
A chill stubborn phalanx of inarticulate politicians is rallied around their filibuster flag and that's how history is made.
Yet we are talking about a debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) described this as being a debate. Where are the members of his group who have entered this debate? Where are the members of the government who have entered this debate? Where are the members of the other little parties who have entered this debate? Have they no idea of what their constituents want in regard to a flag? Have they no thoughts about what the country needs to resolve our unity between the two great founding nations? They have no ideas at all, Mr. Speaker. At least, if they have they are not expressing them.
As a matter of interest I would like to mention one more thing in regard to the so-called filibuster. The Prime Minister, in the last revised version of items he wanted dealt with before calling a summer recess, listed six items. Five have been dealt with and we are now on the sixth, the flag issue. The official opposition feels it is important enough to forgo the holidays in order that this whole issue will be settled in a democratic manner.
It has even been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) that the government bring forward other important legislation so that we can deal with that also. Yesterday he suggested that the farm loans legislation be brought forward, but we found in answer to that question that it was not ready, and there is a growing suspicion among opposition members that the government's other legislation is not ready either, and that in order to play for time its members sit there twiddling their thumbs in a filibuster of silence.
The Prime Minister and some of his colleagues seems to feel that the election promise made with regard to the flag supersedes all their other promises made at that time, despite the fact that it was conspicuous by its absence from the Liberal campaign literature, as the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) has pointed out. It certainly does not appear in the literature which was sent me by the Liberal candidate in my riding. I have a copy here. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is about 2 feet long by 6 inches wide. There is fine print on both sides and it is full of promises to the Canadian people.
Canadian Flag
In all this fine print there is no mention of a new flag. It is not my intention to put any of these unfulfilled promises on record because I dislike having my speech cluttered up with trash-and no other name can be used to describe what is apparently nothing but Liberal propaganda.
The Liberal candidate in my riding was really kind. He sent me another pamphlet called "Prosperity and the Farmer". These two pamphlets are published by the national Liberal federation. If any member wants to get copies, the address is 251 Cooper street, Ottawa. Just reading this pamphlet would make any farmer full of anticipation. His mouth would water. However the farmers are still waiting for these promises to be fulfilled. Do you know something: There is nothing about a flag here. It did not offer the farmers a new flag.


An hon. Member:: Wrong part of the country.


George Robson Muir: Incidentally it might be interesting to recall an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on August 13 under the name of Mr. Bruce West. This is what he had to say:
Have you noticed how well those new banners are holding up on the radio antennas of those brave souls who are leading the way in our trek out of the valley of colonial humiliation? What the Toronto soot and rain are doing to these pennants shouldn't happen to a proposed flag for Lower Slobovia. Even their most ardent supporters must be wondering a bit about these bedraggled banners which were recently rushed on to the market by some patriot with a fast eye for a buck. After only a few weeks in the breeze, they make a sorry comparison with the historic flag which has been flying in this country for the better part of a century. There's just something about a wet maple leaf on a tattle-tale grey background which fails to stir the pulse, and surely the designers of the proposed new flag must recognize this fact.
I see my time is running out and I must curtail what I had intended to say. The article goes on:
However, perhaps I and many other hundreds of thousands or millions of people in this country are wrong, as we have been told so often in rather rude and testy terms. If this is so, I would like to see it proved in a nation-wide referendum.
We are constantly being told that such a vote would cause widespread dissension in this country. What, pray, do we have now? It is hardly unity.
I am sure that many of us who now oppose the scrapping of our present proud flag now be willing to shut up and bow to the will of the majority if a referendum indicated that a new flag were desired by this country.
It might be painful, but not nearly so painful as the prospect of having this flag foisted upon us by a government which really gives its members no other choice but that of voting for the adoption of a new standard.

Canadian Flag
Now I should like to make a reasonable suggestion to the Prime Minister. I should like to suggest to him that he withdraw the flag resolution until such time as a Canadian government gets a clear mandate from the people on this issue either through a plebiscite or at the next general election. He himself has stated that the people would let him know the answer in no uncertain terms. Let the people give their answer first, before we start messing around with our flag. Unless the right hon. gentleman is prepared to do so he is destroying by a pressed vote what is in reality the very basis of our democratic process. We are not just an emerging nation which would expect a jungle leader to tell us just what flag we must have. We have many years of history behind us, and no flag chosen in such a manner could be considered acceptable to a highly developed, proud and civilized people. By pressing the flag issue to a conclusion, the Prime Minister is scuttling his own legislative program and, in the process, weakening the image of parliament. If our national symbols are to be chosen in this manner, without seeking majority opinion or without at least a willingness to compromise, a strain is being put on our national unity at a time when the utmost good will is needed on the part of every Canadian to ensure that we continue to develop as a nation under the pact created between the two great founding races and adhered to ever since confederation.
I have asked the Prime Minister to drop this issue in the interest of national unity until such time as the Canadian people have an opportunity to express their views either through a plebiscite or at the next general election. We all know where the Prime Minister stands on the flag question. He has made his views known, and he is adhering to them; otherwise the issue would have been withdrawn from the political arena long ago. But we have not heard much from the other hon. gentlemen on the front benches opposite. Mr. Charles Lynch says the Prime Minister's position is weakening in this regard. It would be interesting therefore if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), for example, were to give us the benefit of his views on this matter. Is he to be the only one in Newfoundland who will be flying this new flag?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member like an answer to that question now?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Robson Muir: No, after I have finished.
[Mr. Muir (Lisgar).)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be delighted to give my views by voting if I were allowed to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Robson Muir: Then there is the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) -


An hon. Member:: That was a good long speech, Jack.


Maurice John Moreau: Your members shouted him down.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


George Robson Muir: -representing a constituency where a recent survey showed 80 per cent in favour of the red ensign.


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



PRIVATE BILLS

Reid Scott: On a point of order. Yesterday, the Prime Minister, discussing the importance of the flag debate, told us it was the most important matter for decision before parliament and that it should take priority over such things as the Canada pension plan and all the other items on the order paper. If it is so important-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Mr. Scot!: -I suggest it should take precedence over private members' hour, which is concerned with nothing but bills for the Bell Telephone Company and things of that sort.


William Arnold Peters: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Arnold Peters: Let Bill S-27 stand at the request of the opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Unanimous consent must be given to the standing of this bill, this being an order of the house.


Mr. MacNaughi:: There is no agreement that Bill No. S-27 should stand.



BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, August 13, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-27, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Brown-Mr. Batten in the chair.

On clause 1-Number of directors.
Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, this special bill referring to the Bell Telephone Company of Canada has attracted my attention because of comments that I made in this house in December of 1962 and again in 1964 with regard to the contract between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. Before I make any comments on a matter affecting the Bell Telephone Company I would like to point out that there is no conflict of interest on my part. I am one of the 222 subscribers to the Tiny township municipal telephone system, and since it is a municipal telephone system the taxpayers of Tiny are the owners of the telephone system. We have no plans to sell the system to any other competitor, and as far as I know we have not been approached to make such a sale in order that they may affiliate their services with our very satisfactory arrangements in the township of Tiny.
This telephone system up on the shores of Georgian bay has approximately 200 French Canadian subscribers who are permanent residents of Lafontaine and the township of Tiny, and about 25 English speaking Canadians who are cottage owners in the district. I wish to declare my interest in a telephone company at this point so no one will accuse me of a conflict of interest.
I mentioned in 1962 that the president of the Canadian Pacific railroad and the president of the Canadian National railroad had written a joint letter to the minister of transport of the day, Hon. Leon Balcer, after they had lost a contract which they had held jointly for 30 years with the C.B.C. In the course of a letter to Hon. Leon Balcer it was pointed out that for three different ten year periods the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. together had rendered service in the transmission of sound to the 195 radio stations throughout Canada. In 1962 the C.B.C. called for tenders for this service and the C.N.R. and the C.P.R., two of the most efficiently operated organizations in the Dominion of Canada-and I would even go further and say two of the most efficiently operated organizations in the world-put in a normal tender based on their 30 years of experience.
You can well imagine, Mr. Speaker, their surprise when they were advised some time later that the contract had gone to a competitive system which was able to quote a price 25 per cent lower. It does seem to me that if there is an organization that can operate a business profitably at 25 per cent lower rates than the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. railroads, after
Private Bills
their 30 years of experience in this particular field, we should turn the operations of the C.N.R. railroad over to that organization and probably they could cut the expenses of the C.N.R. by 25 per cent. However, the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. did not look at it in this manner. They wrote a letter to Hon. Leon Balcer pointing out that it was fair to the communications industry in Canada to have a competitor in the field who was able to put in a very low tender for this service and secure very high rates in other fields by representations to other boards or commissions throughout the dominion. The letter, signed jointly by Mr. Emerson on behalf of Mr. Crump, president of C.P.R., and by Mr. Donald Gordon, concluded by stating:
Public long distance telephone rates in Canada are 50 per cent or more above comparable rates in the United States which are regulated by the federal communications commission.
I was appointed a member of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines this session and we had before us this original application for examination. Some very interesting news came out of the discussions we had.


The Chairman:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I wonder if he would indicate, for the benefit of the Chair, how the remarks he has made up to this time and which obviously he intends to make are related to clause 1 of the bill now before the committee. As the hon. member knows, discussion in committee should be strictly relevant to the subject matter before us, and it is not too clear to the Chair how these remarks relate to clause 1 of this bill.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Sir, is clause 1 the title of the bill?


Lucien Lamoureux: No. The committee is discussing clause 1.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I thought we were on the title of the bill.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will look at Bill No. S-27, you will see it is an act respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. However, it is not only an act respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada but is an amendment to a previous act which established by incorporation the Bell Telephone Company in the year 1880 by Bill No. C-67. I suggest that the hon. member is in order in making these remarks on clause 1. This bill is an amendment of a previous act that has been, as the chairman will note, amended on at least a dozen occasions over a period of

Private Bills
years. This bill is an amendment to the Bell Telephone act. The hon. member is speaking to the general matter of the Bell Telephone Company and is therefore speaking, in effect, to the act that is being amended by this particular bill. I suggest the hon. member is in order.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am afraid I cannot agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member. As he knows, I am sure, an amending bill does not, automatically, necessarily reopen the discussion on the original act that is being amended by the new bill. The hon. member on this occasion and, if I remember correctly, on a previous occasion suggested that because there is a reference in the marginal note to previous legislation, all that previous legislation is being re-opened by the bill that we have before us. Certainly there is nothing in the standing orders of the House of Commons that says that when we are discussing in committee a specific clause of a specific bill, the discussion can include the principle or the details of the act which is being amended. There are, of course, precedents to support the position adopted by the Chair. We had a very general discussion of this matter when we were on second reading before we reached the committee stage. But certainly at this stage we should limit our discussion to what is before the committee. That is the requirement of our standing orders.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I had read this Senate Bill S-27 several times, Mr. Chairman, and I was of the opinion, and still am-I did not have it before me when you questioned me-that there was only one clause in the bill. Clause 1 says, you will notice:
1. Section 8 of chapter 67 of the statutes of 1880 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Colon. Then there are these words:
8. The business of the company...
And so on. I take it, therefore, there is only one clause in this whole bill. Am I incorrect, Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: Of course not; there is only one clause, but the clause deals with the increase in the maximum number of directors from 15 to 20. That is what this committee is asked to approve. As I said, on second reading there was very general discussion about the operations of the Bell Telephone Company. It was the feeling of the Chair at the time that we should allow a general discussion, but at this stage my suggestion to all hon. members is that the discussion should be limited to the specific matter before the committee.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I remember that during the discussion of this bill before the house the hon. member for Timiskaming asked in rather forthright terms: What is the need for increasing the number of directors from 15 to 20? I hope to be able to show that they need to increase the number of directors from 15 to 20 in order to be able to divide the profits faster. It takes them a little longer with only 15 men dividing them than it would with 20 working at it. That is the reason I rise to make a few comments on this matter.
I was pointing out when I was interrupted, that the public long distance telephone rates in Canada are 50 per cent or more above comparable rates in the United States. That is the flat statement of the president of the C.P.R. and the president of the C.N.R. Before the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee of this house I made some inquiries of Marcel Vincent, president, P. C. Venne, Q.C., vice president and R. C. Scrivener, vice president, with regard to the operation of their organization. One of the things in which I was interested was a statement which was made under examination by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) concerning the increased rates for local telephone service. We were told in the evidence given before the committee by the speakers on behalf of the Bell Telephone Company that when the number of telephones in a local service increases, the rate goes up. This was a rather surprising statement because many of us have had the idea that the rate is usually reduced for bulk purchases-that volume reduces the rate. Evidently the Bell Telephone Company does not work in that way, because as we were questioning their representatives it came out that the rate was raised locally as the number of telephones increased. Then I asked the question, reported at page 429 of the report:
The more telephones there are, the higher the
rate?
Then the vice president of the Bell Telephone, Mr. Scrivener, gave this answer:
The higher the cost of providing the service and the greater value of the service.
That would show that as the number of telephones goes up the cost of the service also goes up.
A little further on in the proceedings I quoted this statement of Mr. Crump and Mr. Gordon to the representatives of the Bell Telephone Company, and I asked them whether they did not go before the board of

transport commissioners and argue that because of the relatively limited number of telephones in Canada they had to have higher rates for long distance calls. Then this answer was given by the president of the Bell Telephone as reported at page 430 of the report:
Whether the percentage is correct or not, the fact is that the rates are higher in Canada than they are in the United States. The development is not comparable at all; we have a very scattered population from one ocean to another.
The Bell operates in Quebec and Ontario; but they refer to the scattered population from one ocean to another, even though the population they serve is more or less concentrated in Ontario and Quebec.
When questioned as to why the rates were 50 per cent higher Mr. Scrivener replied:
Because of the development in Canada, sure.
You thus have it that the local rates are raised because of the increased number of telephones; the long distance rates are high because of the very small number of telephones. If you ever saw a monopoly operating to perfection, Mr. Chairman, I would say that this is the perfect example.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. member again. I have been listening to him in the hope that he would relate his remarks to the clause before the committee at the moment, but I must remind him of standing order 59(2) which says:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
What the hon. member is doing now is referring to the operations of this company, which to my mind is quite far removed from the subject matter we are required to discuss, namely the increase from 15 to 20 in the number of directors in the Bell Telephone Company. I would ask the hon. member to relate his remarks to the specific point.


Mr. Clancy:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that the hon. member is talking about something concerned with the expenditure of the taxpayers' money, which is always our concern in this house. Whether the company concerned be Bell or Saskatchewan Telephones does not matter; we are talking about spending the Canadian taxpayers' money and I think this is relevant.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Perhaps I might develop my remarks and show the committee how busy the directors of the Bell Telephone Company are with all their multifarious activities, including the operation of Northern Electric
Private Bills
Company. Perhaps it will then become apparent to the committee how vital it is that there be an increase in the number of directors in order to look after the multitude of duties they have imposed upon themselves- in the opinions of many, quite unnecessarily.
I thought when I mentioned that the rates are increased locally because the number of telephones increases, and that the long distance rates are increased because the number of telephones is limited that you would be interested in a statement accompanying the shareholders quarterly review of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, summer 1964 issue, in which the subscribers are given comparative rates to show how the rates have dropped for three minute daytime station to station calls from Montreal to Vancouver. In 1949 it cost $7 for a three minute daytime station to station call Montreal to Vancouver, and in 1964 it costs $3. This is a tremendous reduction, from $7 to $3, in a matter of 25 years. I am not too sure whether this is because of the tremendous increase in the number of telephones in Montreal and Vancouver-because we are told that it is because of the increased number of telephones that the rates go up-or whether it is because of a decrease in the number of telephones. The Bell has already told us that where telephones are scattered the cost must be high to cover the costs. They have explained some of the reduction in cost by pointing out that technological advances are benefiting all long distance telephone users, but when a caller requires personal service to ensure locating a particular person he waives some of the advantages of automatic operation and faces the effects of rising labour costs. Improved long distance service and rate reductions have been accompanied by rapidly growing use of the company's long distance facilities. Microwave systems can transmit large quantities of information over great distances and difficult terrain more economically than is possible with wire and cable systems. These are technological advances well known to the public of Canada, and they believe that they should be taken into consideration in setting both local and long distance rates.
In connection with this application for an increase in the directorate I would draw your attention to part of the annual report of the Canadian National Railways for 1963. The hon. member for Three Rivers knew when the contract was given by the C.B.C., after 30 years in the hands of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R., that between them these

Private Bills
people would lose approximately $1 million a year in services. Mr. Donald Gordon, reporting for the C.N.R. in 1963 on telecommunications, stated that net income from all telecommunications services was $5.4 million in 1963, which was down $200,000 from 1962. Mr. Gordon points out that the C.N. telecommunications net income was down $200,000 from 1962. The C.B.C. contract, which the C.N.R. had lost was worth $500,000 a year to it.


Lucien Lamoureux: I must again interrupt the hon. member and ask him to co-operate with the Chair. The Chair has brought his attention to standing order 59(2), which I will read again:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Certainly the hon. member will admit that what he has been saying during the last few minutes is entirely irrelevant, as far as the Chair is concerned, to the clause before the committee. There are rules of procedure which must be respected by all hon. members and I ask the hon. member's co-operation in referring as expeditiously as possible to the clause of the bill now under consideration.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I find the remarks of the hon. member most timely. I believe that those remarks have something to do with these operations and with the particular clause that is before us. In fact, I am eagerly awaiting his further remarks in this regard so that we may then know something about this before it is dealt with by the house.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I point out that the bill now before us, respecting the Bell Telephone Company, provides directly for the addition of five members to the board of directors, an increase to 20. I think you, Mr. Chairman, should give some consideration as to why this board should be increased from 15 to 20 members. I suggest any increase in a board of directors is contemplated for one of several reasons. Surely a board of directors has a purpose and a relationship to the operations of the company. This company is asking for an increase of five in the number of directors. I think it is reasonable to our discussion to ascertain why the number should be increased by five, and the function to be performed by those additional members. I think we should be made aware of any situation that has developed in this

country which would warrant such an increase.
It is my information that when a company requires an increase in its board of directors it is because of an expansion in the operations of the company or because the company is amalgamating with another company. Such a required increase might also be necessitated by a proposed increase in the capitalization or expansion of the company. I feel that members of parliament have a right and obligation to ask why a board of directors should be increased.
We have no indication as to who the additional five members might be. We do not have any information about their associations with other companies. I suggest the hon. member is not in a position to tell us who the members are or why they are being appointed. I think it is your responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to allow this discussion to be broad enough so that we may obtain answers to these questions. What purpose will these additional directors serve? What is wrong with the company at the present time, necessitating an increase in its board of directors? I suggest it is your responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to allow hon. members to find out, through the hon. member for York-Humber, whether or not the increase of five members to the board of directors of this company will be in the interests both of the company and the people of this country. I suggest, therefore, that the hon. member be asked to indicate why the officials of the Bell Telephone Company feel an increase in the number of directors on the board is necessary.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman who has just spoken should direct his question to the Minister of Transport. The hon. member will recall that not long ago he voted some $86 million to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways. Let us go back to where this whole thing started.


An hon. Member:: The Minister of Transport is not here.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: He is not usually here, but that makes little difference.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: 
Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Direct your question to the Minister of Transport.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have listened with interest to the remarks made by hon. members on the point of order. Some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming are, in my mind, the type of questions that must have been raised and considered when this bill was before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I suggest that was the purpose of sending the bill to the committee. In view of the fact the bill has been before that committee and is now back for consideration by the committee of the whole house, we are bound by the rules of procedure. All I can do is read again for your guidance standing order 59(2), which states:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must he strictly relevant-
I expect all hon. members will keep that in mind during the course of their remarks.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, questions have been asked in committee concerning this bill, and in view of the hazy answers given, I agree with the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that we are complying with the standing orders in discussing the reasons for this increase in the number of the company's directors.


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Chairman, to end the discussion on that point, would the unanimous consent of the house settle the issue?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your comments, and those members who have participated in this matter, in an attempt to show the relevancy of my remarks in respect of whether there should be five more directors added to the board of the Bell Telephone Company.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that when the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee met I raised a question about the C.B.C. contract. I asked this question directly of the Bell Telephone representative although for some reason or other it was not caught by the official reporters. The question was asked at the end of that committee's meetings. I said, would one of the five new directors be a representative of the C.B.C.? The Bell Telephone Company representatives simply smiled and said, no, they had not given consideration to that idea. I thought
Private Bills
such an appointment might have been a fitting reward for taking a contract from a crown corporation, such as the C.N.R., and giving it to a private organization, so that the crown corporation could show that it was down $200,000 next year in net revenue while at the same time it was down $500,000 in gross revenue. Perhaps that is beside the point.
Perhaps the increase by five in the number of directors of the company was necessitated by the company's great interest in the Northern Electric Company, which is considered by many as a subsidiary of Bell Telephone. During the meetings of the railways committee we made a number of inquiries relating to the connection between Bell Telephone and Northern Electric. The board of transport commissioners had made a report, shortly before the Bell Telephone Company made application for this increase, which indicated that Bell Telephone was entitled to own Northern Electric. In the evidence before the board of transport commissioners, a copy of which I have before me, appears repeatedly the statement that Bell Telephone Company owns 90 per cent of the stock of Northern Electric. By the time the parliamentary committee got around to sitting in respect of this application for an increase in the number of directors, as we were informed by those representatives who appeared, Bell Telephone Company owned 100 per cent of the shares of the Northern Electric Company. That statement is repeated two or three times in the evidence taken before that committee.
Mr. Chairman, several hon. members have commented favourably in respect of this application because there are manufacturing companies and offices of the applicant located in their constituencies. I should like to point out for the benefit of the members of this committee that there must be a riding in this Dominion of Canada in which there are employees of Industrial Wire and Cable Company. In respect of the reference to the board of transport commissioners in connection with Bell Telephone and Northern Electric, hon. members might be interested in knowing that most of the employees of Industrial Wire and Cable Company reside in the riding of York-Humber. I have good reason for participating in this debate, because of the interest of the employees of Industrial Wire and Cable. That company has an industrial factory located at the intersection of highway 27 and the Queen Elizabeth highway, in the township of Etobicoke part of which is in the riding of York-Humber. The Industrial

Private Bills
Wire and Cable Company acted as an inter-venor in an application-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry I must interrupt the hon. member. I feel his comments at this point are irrelevant but in any event his time has expired. I have taken into account the fact that there were several points of order. He has been given an additional seven minutes time to compensate for the time used in dealing with those points of order.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, when this matter came on before I had a chance to make a few remarks but I did not get an opportunity to make some remarks I intended to make. I do not wish to repeat myself, but I tried to point out then that I had read carefully the evidence before the committee of this house and was unable to find any sound reason for the request for the expansion of the number of directors. The answer was that they needed more leeway, they needed the vice presidents to get acquainted with the board of directors.
However, I want to deal with a broader aspect of the matter today. As the members of this committee are well aware the Bell Telephone Company is a privately owned monopoly in charge of a tremendously important service. Now, that fact is no reason for the refusal of any reasonable request when the company comes before this house. On the other hand, the fact that they come and ask for an increase in the number of directors enables parliament, and I think imposes upon parliament, an obligation to inquire as to necessity for the increase and to ask some other questions concerning the company's public responsibility.
It is well known to the members of this house that this is a private monopoly, but it is a monopoly with great public responsibility and public interest. This is partly served by making its rates structure subject to control and investigation by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. I am quite sure that the members of this house and the members of the committee do not want to usurp the functions of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. However, we have the right to inquire whether that degree of investigation is dealing adequately with the public responsibility of the Bell Telephone Company. I have a copy of the proceedings before the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. It is only, I think, about 600 or 700 pages, so I do not propose, in the time available, to bring all these matters before this committee.
[Mr. Cowan.1
This transcript concerns an application of Industrial Wire and Cable and deals with the matter raised by the hon. member for York-Humber, namely whether it was legal for the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, under its limited charter, to own shares of Northern Electric Company, a manufacturing company. Now, this question was dealt with by the board of transport commissioners and they held the Bell company legally entitled to hold these shares. What I think has not been called to the attention of the committee is that there was a further application made to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and, so far as I know, this has never been dealt with. Certainly, the committee has never been told whether or not it was dealt with.
As I say, there was an additional phase to that application and that was to find out whether the board of transport commissioners, by reason of the fact that the Bell Telephone Company owned all the shares of Northern Electric, was entitled to review the financial affairs of Northern Electric. This question was adjourned until the question of the legality of the ownership of the shares of Northern by Bell Telephone could be determined. This first question was determined, namely the responsibility of Northern Electric to account to the board of transport commissioners; but so far as I know, and I have the records here but perhaps the sponsor of the bill could tell us some time, the second question never seems to have been looked into.
We have a situation wherein the Bell Telephone Company comes before this house seeking an expansion in the number of the board of directors. We are not in a position to know whether or not, by reason of this link between Northern Electric, the manufacturing company, and Bell Telephone, this large aspect of the work of manufacturing is under any review by anybody, including the board of transport commissioners. I am not the first member of the committee to raise this question. It was raised by the hon. member for Broadview quite early in this debate, on July 18. He said he was not just concerned with whether or not this ownership was legal, but that he was concerned about the question of whether or not this publicly owned monopoly which is under the jurisdiction of the house and which is so important to Canada was, by reason of its ownership of Northern Electric shares, really under the control of this committee and of this parliament or whether a device, as it

were, had been discovered whereby a substantial portion of its operations was not under any control at all. The hon. member for Broadview raised the question, but no answer was given.
It does seem to me that if this house is asked to increase the number of directors, with no reason given but the company's desire to have more leeway, then this house has a right to inquire whether or not, in fact, the application before the board of transport commissioners has ever been dealt with. The question remains open. I submit that before this bill is dealt with, that sort of question as to the responsibility of this company which affects the rights of so many people, should be answered.
Another question that I feel could be answered is the following: In many countries throughout the world they have not adopted either a complete system of private ownership [DOT]or complete public ownership of a public monopoly. In Scandinavia they have adopted a system whereby there is partial ownership by a minority, and there are minority appointments to the board of directors. You have therefore a privately owned company with vast connections, but with representatives of the public on that board. I believe if the sponsor of this bill could assure us that some of the five directors would not be just people with business connections but rather that they would be people with responsibilities to the people of Canada, thus assuring to the public a greater degree of responsibility so that hon. members would have the right and opportunity to find out whether the rate structure was being adjusted in some way [DOT]or other by arrangement with Northern Electric or other companies, he would find we were pleased to give our approval to the bill very quickly.
We have been told that the additional appointments may be vice presidents who are already serving the corporation. I would urge the sponsors of this bill, therefore, that they should seek to answer some of the questions I have asked and some of the questions aked earlier in the debate by the hon. member for Broadview. They should seek to assure this *committee that this would be the result of the request. As I have said, I have read all the evidence in the committee and I could not find anything but the most vague statements that the company wanted more leeway. I believe the parliament of Canada is entitled to be treated with a little more respect by an organization with this wide, major public responsibility.
Private Bills
So far as I am concerned, I do not wish to obstruct the company's receiving any reasonable request that will add to its efficiency or to its responsibility to the public for the tremendously important service they give. However, until these questions are answered, and answered to the satisfaction of hon. members, I feel we should not pass this particular bill. Let them tell us why they need five directors. Let them tell us if the additional directors will add to the public responsibility of the board. Let them tell us whether Northern Electric, which is a wholly owned subsidiary, is to be subject to public regulation by the board of transport commissioners. If they answer these questions they might receive better co-operation from members of this committee, including myself.


Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Huniingdon-La-prairie):: Mr. Chairman, during the past few private members' hours I believe there have been attempts to talk out this bill, No. S-27. Members of the New Democratic party have suggested the appointment of five government directors, and there has been some suggestion of nationalizing the Bell Telephone Company.
In my opinion the Bell Telephone Company is one of the most efficient and well run companies in the country, and is better run privately than it would be as an arm of the government. It may be that at one time or another most subscribers to the company have felt they have not been fairly treated by persons answering their complaints. Generally speaking, however, the company is acutely aware of its public image and is sensitive to the quite frequent charge that it is a monopolistic giant and that it is callously indifferent to complaints from its subscribers.
I have a suggestion which might satisfy the objections of members of this committee and which would at the same time be of advantage to the company. I believe that eventually an ombudsman type of individual should be appointed within the Bell telephone organization, and possibly appointed on the recommendation of the federal government. Such an ombudsman individual would shift much of the burden of criticism which the company itself bears now, and such an appointment would meet the objective of the New Democratic party in their suggestion for the appointment of five directors by the federal government.
I have no desire to delay debate on this bill. I simply feel that if the company and this committee gave consideration to the appoint-

Private Bills
ment of an ombudsman within the Bell organization it would be a way out of the impasse that we seem to have reached on this bill.


Reid Scott: As the hon. member for Greenwood has said, Mr. Chairman, we do not want to delay unduly the passage of this bill, but the questions we are raising are serious ones and we want to have answers to them from the sponsor of the bill. We are all impressed by the Bell company, the importance of the good work it does and the good public relations it enjoys throughout the country. We are not the slightest bit interested in holding the measure back, but the hon. member for Greenwood has raised a very serious point that I believe it is incumbent on the committee to discuss, and I do not see how we can do that until we have some information from the sponsor of the bill.
It is obvious that the bill is not going to pass this evening, and I hope between now and next week the sponsor of the bill will get in touch with whoever had him sponsor it, will raise with them the points we have raised, and that he will come back next week, or whenever we reach the bill again, and make a statement with regard to the matters we have raised.
To refresh his memory, our main objection is that this is a private corporation managing a very large section of the public business, and we are not convinced that it is proper for such a corporation wholly to own a subsidiary when that subsidiary's financial statements are not available for public scrutiny. It is widely suspected in the electric business in Canada that Northern Electric has a two-price list, one for the Bell company and one for everybody else, and there is a wide suspicion a lot of profits are being hidden in this wholly owned subsidiary.
Before passage of the bill we would like an undertaking from the Bell company and Northern Electric that their financial statements will be made available for scrutiny and examination by members of this committee. We do not think this is unreasonable. After all, the Bell Telephone Company has been granted a very important monopoly by this chamber and it has a very serious duty to the public in general, as indeed to the members of this committee. Therefore because of the fact that this wholly owned subsidiary's financial statements are not available we want to see them and satisfy ourselves that there is nothing wrong with the financial relationship between Northern Elec" trie and the Bell company.
[Mr. Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) .1
The hon. member for Greenwood also indicated our view that we think it is a reasonable proposition that members of the public should have representation on the board of directors. Indeed, we intend to move an amendment that three of the directors be appointed on recommendation of the lieutenant governor in council. I think the public ought to have representation, rather than bank directors and presidents of other corporations. I would like to see educational institutions represented on the board of directors. In short we want to see-


Mr. Macdonald:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Which lieutenant governor in council?


Reid Scott: I am sorry, I meant the Governor General. We feel it would be in order for appointments to be made on the recommendation of the Governor General, and we hope the sponsor of the bill will go back, put these two propositions before his principals and let us know what their answers are. I want to emphasize as strongly as I can that we are not interested in holding up the bill just for the sake of holding it up, but we are thoroughly convinced both these propositions are sound and that they raise very serious questions with regard to the matter. We will not let the bill pass until we do get serious consideration of these two very important proposals.


Mr. Belanger:: Mr. Chairman, I too should like to make my contribution to this debate on the bill now before us and which provides for the appointment of five additional members to the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
I wonder whether such an increase in the number of directors would make for a more efficient administration of the affairs of this company.
Apparently, according to several members I have already heard, the manner in which the company is run leaves something to be desired.
For my part, if I were convinced that the addition of five directors would change in some way the administration as it is now, I would be willing to let the bill pass as quickly as possible.
On the other hand, I wonder whether this would improve the situation.
At any rate, in our districts, we take exception to the manner in which this company is administered and to the service it provides.

For instance, in the Beaupre district of my riding of Charlevoix businessmen and business concerns in small towns located ten, 12 or 15 miles from Quebec city have to pay long distance rates for their calls to Quebec city. This adds up to huge amounts and hinders the development of our area.
To prove my point let me read a resolution passed by the various councils of our municipalities. Here is the resolution introduced at the regular council meeting of the municipality of St. Fereol:
Whereas the residential and commercial development of the Beaupre coast is contingent upon free telephone communication between the municipalities concerned, on the one hand, and Quebec city on the other, it is moved and seconded... that the municipal council of St. Fereol support whatever action the telephone division of the Beaupre coast regional development committee sees fit to take, such as the sending of a petition to the Department of Transport in Ottawa."
That resolution was moved and passed by the municipal councils of Chateau Richer, St. Ann parish, St. Ann village, Beaupre- The Chairman: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must remind him, as I did for members of the committee who spoke before him, that comments made at the committee stage must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration.
I would therefore, ask the hon. member for Charlevoix to refer to standing order 59 (2) of the House of Commons which stipulates that speeches in committee of the whole must be relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
The clause under study at this time is clause 1 of Bill No. S-27, providing for an increase from 15 to 20 in the number of directors of The Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
I therefore invite the hon. member to limit his remarks to that very thing.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: 
Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on Bill No. S-27 concerning the Bell Telephone Company of Canada which wants to increase the number of its directors.
I must say that we are not, in principle, against the increase in the number of directors of this company. It is a private company and it is generally admitted that it has rendered great service to society. We want to respect as much as possible the principle of free enterprise; we want free enterprise to remain in Canada.
If free enterprise, as our friends were saying a moment ago, is too ambitious, if it goes too far, if it denies the rights of the community, the government must step in.
As long as this company does not go beyond its rights, that it is not prejudicial to the community, it must be protected, because free enterprise, or private enterprise, is still the best. Nobody can prove that state enterprises are better than private enterprises.
We are then in favour of private enterprise. But if, once again, this private enterprise is too ambitious it rests upon the government to intervene and see to it that it does not hinder the progress of the community in general.
If the rates of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada are too high, it is again up to the authorities concerned to intervene. If this company makes large profits, the government in turn, levies taxes. Speaking of taxes, I believe the purpose of taxes is to cut down the profits of any private company.
We are glad to share in such a project. We wish, in every respect, to maintain private enterprise in Canada. We are not against

Canadian Flag
any private enterprise or any monopoly so long as monopolies do not deny the rights under which they have secured privileges.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am saying again that ;I wish the Bell Telephone Company of Canada would understand the situation. I know we are doing this company a favour by examining its problems.
It was said, a while ago, that this company was a subsidiary of the Northern Electric Company, a subsidiary of the American company, and so on.
Although this company is a subsidiary of the American company, it nevertheless operates in Canada and all the income derived from this business goes back to its shareholders, and if the latter make large profits, they are in turn taxed all the more under the Income Tax Act.
In any event, I still think that, in spite of all, it is fair to protect this private enterprise.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman? [Text]
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the question to be raised at 10.30 o'clock this evening is the following:

The hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. La-prise): Labour conditions and winter works- inquiry as to whether the federal government has paid its share.

At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion by 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
tMr. Latulippe.l
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. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, in this House of Commons I think I am better known as a listener than as a speaker, but I make no apologies whatsoever for rising to make a contribution on this flag question. Indeed, I had a very nice speech prepared, but after the lecture we received from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) this afternoon I think that even before I make my introduction I should make some observations upon the contribution of that hon. member. It was not unusual for him to adopt the attitude of preaching to the House of Commons about the sins of other parties and other members. He said that we were wasting time, that we were lowering the standards of parliament, and so on. But indeed, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the index of Hansard I have no doubt that this hon. member occupies as much space in the index as I for one occupy in Hansard as a whole. I believe that neither the Liberal party nor the New Democratic party are in any position to lecture to the Conservative party about wasting time in the house. The Liberal party in the 1962-63 session proved themselves to be a more obstructionist party than perhaps we have ever witnessed in this house. Even at the time when the New Democratic party, or the old C.C.F. party, was just a minor group of eight members I think they took more than their share of space in Hansard. Certainly the party to my far left, the Creditistes, and the New Democratic party still, when we consider their numbers, take up much more time in this house and space in Hansard than any of the other parties.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it is idle for a person to preach to us when he has only to look back on the sins of his own party in this house. I think especially of what has already been mentioned, the divorce blockade-not by a major party but by a minor group in this country, and particularly two members who saw fit to hold up divorce bills in this house, not for 15 or 16 days, but indeed I think it could be measured in terms of months and sessions, and perhaps even years, inflicting personal hardship upon the people who were affected and who had a right to come to this House of Commons to ask for relief.

I believe the hon. member really destroyed his own case, too, when he suggested that we should stop talking so we could vote on the subamendment and the amendment in order that his party could introduce their amendment; in other words, so we could start talking on their amendment. To me that did not sound as though he was wanting an end to the debate in order that we could get on with other legislation. It was not a very convincing case that the hon. member put forward, to my mind.


William Skoreyko: Typical Knowles tactics.


Joseph Slogan: Then he talked about extending the hours of sitting of the House of Commons. Indeed, this has already been done, and already in the country we are receiving criticism because the attendance in the house is not as it should be when we sit through the noon hour on Fridays. When it comes to his argument that we should get on with other legislation, surely the hon. member realizes it was only at the insistence of the opposition parties that the government was finally forced to bring in their legislative program. We asked for and passed the legislative program which the government wished passed before a recess. If we are occupying the time of the house at a time when we could be on the beaches and in our cottages, there must be a principle behind what we are doing, because certainly we do not do this just because we want to talk.


William Skoreyko: Stanley wouldn't understand the principle.


Joseph Slogan: The hon. member talked about the number of speeches that have been made in this house by the Conservative members, and so forth. Surely, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of principle such as the flag everyone in this house should feel obliged to speak. He should feel obliged to speak because of the fact that he represents people who I am sure would like to know how he is representing them in this house, and because he has a conscience of his own. Also may I remind the hon. member that there are still a large number of members of this party who have not contributed to this debate at all. These are some of the factors I wanted to raise regarding the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, there was nothing in his speech suggesting the setting up of a committee of the House of Commons to which this question could be referred, which would clear the decks for action in this house on other legislation. In fact, we agree with many 20220-465
Canadian Flag
of his constructive suggestions, such as the idea that one day in the week should be left for legislation. I believe the house leader of our party has made suggestions, perhaps not identical but similar in their purport, and I know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said he was prepared to accept here and now the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre so far as the bringing in of legislation is concerned. Now it is up to the government to agree to that suggestion and to start bringing in that legislation for which we have continually asked. But where is it? Perhaps it would not be such a bad idea if the Prime Minister of this country sat in on this debate now and then in order to appreciate some of the feelings which are being generated and some of the suggestions being put forward by hon. members of this house, because certainly they could result in a solution of this problem.


William Skoreyko: The member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz).


Joseph Slogan: I do not want to spend my whole time discussing the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to many of the speeches made in the house in this debate and I must say that in my opinion they have been far above par. I believe this debate as a whole, considering its length, has been of a quality which we have not seen in this house for many years. Certainly the members of this party could roll out a lot more in the way of emotion and argument than they have. I believe they have been very moderate; I think they have put forward good suggestions; their speeches have been very sincere. I am pleased to note, also, that many of the members of this house who very seldom speak have been prompted to speak in the debate because of the way they feel on this question. I must say that those members have made a distinct contribution by the manner in which they spoke and they are a credit to their constituents.
I am sorry to see there have not been more members on the government side who have spoken. Some of them have been very facetious in their interjections. I would feel from their interjections that they think they have more brains in their seats when sitting than when on their feet. I can assure them that their interjections do not measure up to their expectations.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not say this for myself but I trust the

Canadian Flag
hon. member can indicate to the house what change in the design his discourse will bring about.


Joseph Slogan: I am very happy the hon. member is listening so attentively to my speech; if he will contain himself I will get around to that question very shortly.
At the beginning of this debate we had a very broad participation on the part of the members of the Liberal party. Although they were saying that we were filibustering they were almost making speech for speech with us. Then apparently the Prime Minister lowered the guillotine and there was a wall of silence on that side of the house. This was brought to the attention of the public and we are now treated to the spectacle of one speaker per day, so that we cannot say that they are completely gagged. Although some members opposite are very facetious others are very attentive. I have watched their faces during some of the speeches which have been made on this side of the house. I think they have convictions of their own and I wish they would talk about them. I am wondering why they do not. Are they afraid to express their opinions or do they not have any convictions? Are they so divided on that side of the house and so lack conviction that they have nothing to say? I wonder whether they feel that they are representing the opinion of their constituents by their silence. Not all of them are silent. There is the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) who has courage indeed. He made one of the greatest indictments of a prime minister which I have heard in this house. Among other things he said that the caucus was not consulted about the flag, that it was a decision brought in from the top.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) spent most of his time yesterday afternoon interjecting during the speech of myself and other members in this house. He is doing precisely the same tonight. I would ask you to restrain him or ask him to make a contribution in this flag debate, please.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Go and lick some stickers.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member knows as do all hon. members, that an hon. member who has the floor is entitled to speak without interruption. I hope that is kept in mind.


Joseph Slogan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind these interruptions because they reflect only upon those who make them.


Lawrence E. Watson: You know where they come from.


Joseph Slogan: I have already dealt with the contention that we are delaying legislation. We are asking the government to bring forward legislation so that it can be dealt with expeditiously, as was the legislation which has already been passed.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) is one of the few frontbenchers on the government side to participate in this debate. As reported at page 6956 of Hansard he said:
No one with respect tor our parliamentary institutions would wish to contribute to the filibuster now under way.
The word "parliament" itself derives from the verb "to speak". I am most surprised that the minister, who perhaps was used to exercising bureaucratic power before he became a minister, is now trying to gag his own members and withdraw them from this debate. If they did speak they could make contributions, and I think speech by speech we would inch toward some sort of conclusion which would be acceptable to this parliament as a whole and to the people of Canada.
I must mention the speech of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) because he made some very constructive suggestions. In our amendment to the motion we have asked for a referendum. Then in our subamendment we have made some specific proposals regarding the questions which could be asked relating to a design in such a referendum.
In this connection I should like to refer to a radio broadcast quoted many times here which the present Prime Minister made on December 29, 1961. He was asked: "How would you poll the people on this?"-that is, the flag question. The then leader of the opposition replied: "We would poll the people when we have a general election, and if they don't like the idea of a distinctive Canadian flag which cannot be mistaken for that of any other country they will let us know in no uncertain terms". I agree with this point of view which the leader of the Liberal party expressed at that time.
I also think the people of Canada agree with it because there have been a large number of letters and representations to the government asking for a referendum. I refer to the Ottawa Citizen of June 4 where in an article by Norman Campbell headed "10,000 send views to P.M." one of the categories the letters fell into was those calling for a

referendum on the flag question. So certainly the view of the then leader of the opposition was supported by the people.
Then in the Ottawa Journal for June 16 there is the headline over a Canadian Press dispatch: "350 ft. ensign petition to P.M.". I might just quote shortly from this article, which says:
A petition bearing 17,873 names, mainly from Toronto and southern Ontario communities, was left at Prime Minister Pearson's office Monday urging a national plebiscite on the flag question.
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the geographical areas referred to are mostly represented by members on the other side of the house.
I am not an Orangeman but I have an article here from the Saskatchewan Leader-Post of June 18 which is headed: "Orangemen ask Pearson for flag referendum". I also have an editorial from the Telegram of August 22 under the caption "Ask the people". It goes on to say:
The voice of the people can be heard on this issue only through a national plebiscite...
Here is a matter which touches the hearts, the emotions, the loyalties of virtually all Canadians. A parliamentary vote that would destroy the country's flag would leave deep and festering scars for years to come.
So there is certainly the feeling among the people of the country that they want to have a voice in the selection of the flag which will fly over them.
Perhaps the reason they want to have a voice is the manner in which this flag resolution has been brought before the House of Commons. I want to return for a moment to the radio interview which I mentioned given by the then leader of the opposition on December 29, 1961. He was asked: "But you do think the country needs this symbol to hold us together?" and he replied: "Yes; I think it would be a good idea to have a distinctive Canadian flag in the interests of national unity". I emphasize the words "in the interests of national unity". We just have to look at what has happened in this country since the Liberal party took office to see that if there is anything which is needed in this country it is national unity. Unfortunately, everything which this government does tends to divide this country further and further. In another answer the Prime Minister went on to say: "We should try to solve these problems in a manner which will create the minimum of division and the maximum of unity". That is a good way of putting it, and I agree. I think that if we are going to bring in a new national flag it has to be done with a minimum of division in this country, and 20220-465J
Canadian Flag
certainly the Prime Minister of today is not living up to his words of yesterday.
When the Prime Minister was asked: "What about Quebec; would they want the fleur-de-lis on it," Mr. Pearson said: "Well, we would have the Quebec members of our cabinet decide what the design would be". Perhaps it was the Quebec members of the government that designed this flag.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit me to ask him whether he is aware of the fact that the Prime Minister categorically denied ever having made that statement? I am sure he would not want to repeat something that was misreported and categorically denied by the Prime Minister.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is it necessary that hon. members of this house must listen to the Minister of Transport, who is completely ignorant of the facts?


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the interjection made by the Minister of Transport. I think probably I am one of the more placid members of this house. I was not aware of the fact that the Prime Minister had denied this statement. I believe this report was taken from a tape recording, but if the Prime Minister did not make that statement, I will withdraw the remark, or at least indicate that I am sorry I ever mentioned it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This was a tape recording.


An hon. Member:: Good night Jack.


Joseph Slogan: Later in this interview the leader of the Liberal party was asked: "What is your conception of the new Canadian flag?" Mr. Pearson said, regarding the design: "Well, I am not going to tell you what the design should be." Mr. Pearson then went on to say: "The government will make up its mind. If I am going to be the head of the government I am not going to tell you what the design is." That does not make very much sense.
I would like to quote from an article which appeared in the Toronto Star, May 20, under the headline "P.M. Told Newsmen of Flag Decision". I suppose he must have changed his mind. Perhaps it would be more clear if I quote a few short lines from this article, because I think this has a bearing on the question. This quotation relates to that meeting of the Prime Minister and newsmen who were called to his home for the unfurling of

Canadian Flag
what was referred to as "his choice", the three maple leaves design. He said-
-he was prepared to have the government stand or fall on the maple leaf flag.
The Prime Minister was careful, however, to make clear that the flag on the mantle was his personal choice.
When we now refer to the three maple leaves design as the Pearson pennant, or something of that nature, I certainly do not think he would now say it was not his personal choice. I am wondering whether it would not have been much more democratic for perhaps a caucus to make that choice, or a committee of this house.
Not only is the motion before the house in the name of the Prime Minister sponsoring a flag design of his own choice, but the Prime Minister said to this House of Commons that if we do not accept this flag then we are going to have an election. I have never heard anything more close to political blackmail than that statement.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a headline which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on June 18. The headline states: "Regards Both Flag Votes as Confidence Tests: P.M.". Perhaps I might also refer to an article that appeared in the Toronto Telegram of July 20, written by Ronald Collister headed: "Accept My Flag or Else . . . Warns a Defiant Pearson". The article then states:
Mr. Pearson is laying down the law, with fire and fury, after the breakdown of all-party talks on a firm agenda for the next month.
In the Montreal Gazette of August 24 there appeared another article under the heading: "Free Flag Vote, Pearson Calls Off the Whips".
Mr. Speaker, perhaps there is a reason for this turn of events. I have before me an article written by Patrick Nicholson, which appeared in the Quebec Chronicle-Telegram on August 12, 1964. The heading is: "Election on Flag Could Kill Libs".
Perhaps all these headlines are really related one to the other. I think there must be a compromise in respect of this question. Although some might call these compromises retreats, I think the compromises are good. Perhaps one can properly come to the conclusion that if the compromises are necessary they are good. The Prime Minister did not give too much consideration to the whole situation in the beginning, or he would not have had to change his mind so many times. The fact that he is still openminded and willing to change his opinion I think represents good news for this parliament. I think more changes will have to be made.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to refer to the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) calling for a referendum. I think I have produced evidence showing that there is support among the people of Canada for this position. What might the result of such a referendum be? In my personal opinion I do not think a plebiscite should be held immediately. I agree with the original view of the leader of the Liberal party, that the time to call a referendum is at the next election. If the next election is held a year or two from now I think that would be an appropriate time to hold a referendum, because by then all the emotion that has now been created may well have subsided and we would be able to obtain a more accurate reflection of the views of the public than could be obtained today. I recall one politician who on many occasions said, when the sea is whipped up into fury and the waves are riding high, surveyors do not measure the height or depth of the land, but wait until the sea is calm. Perhaps that thought has some application to this present situation.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer now to the results of some polls which have been held. A Canadian Press dispatch in Winnipeg of June 29 appeared in the Ottawa Citizen and states:
A flag poll at the eight-day Red River exhibition here saw 41 per cent of 15,000 persons indicate a preference for the red ensign as Canada's national flag.
That poll was not conducted by the Conservative party, but was sponsored by the Manitoba New Democratic party. It showed 32 per cent of those polled in favour of a tri-maple leaf flag, 15 per cent in favour of a new flag with one maple leaf, and 12 per cent in favour of a new flag with some other design. Seventy four per cent of those polled favoured a national referendum on the flag. Certainly if one requires a sampling of public opinion, that is it, and it indicates that we should hold a referendum on this subject.
Mr. Speaker, in the Evening Telegram of June 10 appeared an article under the heading: "Flag Straw Vote Ends... Ensign 773; New Flag 332". I believe that poll was held in Newfoundland and should be of special interest to the Minister of Transport.
In the Montreal Star of July 21 appeared an article under the heading: "Red Ensign Advocated by 149,465". Perhaps I should read

a short part of this article, which states as follows:
The office of the state secretary has received 149,465 signatures on letters and petitions since July, 1945, favouring retention of the red ensign as Canada's national flag, the Commons was informed yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I think that article gives some idea of what the people of Canada are thinking, and would indicate why a referendum should be held on this flag issue. I do not think the Liberal party should be afraid of a referendum or plebiscite. The red ensign is leading in nine provinces.
On a national basis, as has been pointed out, the figures are, red ensign, 27.9 per cent, maple leaf flag, 39.6 and others, 15.4. Certainly, they have nothing to fear if they feel the people of Canada really want this three maple leaf flag. This is the way to get it, to have a referendum.
In this party we have generally supported the red ensign. I am not speaking here solely as a supporter of the red ensign. I think I can be a little broader in outlook, Mr. Speaker. Last December I conducted a survey in my own riding, and this was before all the emotions had been stirred up. The survey was quite a wide one but there were some flag questions included. At that time, 10 to 1, the people of my riding were in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag. The margin was something like 52 per cent to 48 per cent in favour of the red ensign. However, since that time, since the time the three maple leaf flag was unfurled, there has been a considerable change on the part of those who wanted a distinctive flag other than the red ensign. Many of them have now decided to support the red ensign because they feel it is a far superior design to the one proposed by the Prime Minister. I agree with them because, personally, I do not like the three maple leaves. I would prefer one maple leaf.
I believe we, in this party, are being very broadminded. I do not believe we have been such diehards, because not only are we suggesting a referendum but our subamendment provides a wide scope for the questions to be placed on the referendum. We have given four choices to the people of Canada. The first is the red ensign. The second is a modification of the red ensign. The third is the three maple leaf flag, and the fourth is a single maple leaf flag. Since this proposal has been made in the subamendment there have been a number of speeches made in this house in which the suggestion has been made this question should be referred to a committee. I am wholeheartedly behind this idea.
Canadian Flag
I believe that this party would be prepared to accept a reasonable deliberation by such a committee. If the government insists on a time limit so far as the committee is concerned, certainly that would be no stumbling block.
I feel that one of the things the committee could consider would be a design that might have almost unanimous approval. If such unanimity were reached and such a flag were brought back to the house, I believe it could be adopted without too much debate and there would be no need for further reference to the people. If the small group of members comprising this committee were unable to agree, then perhaps they could clarify the questions that should be asked on this referendum. Of course the red ensign question is very clear. The question of modifications on the red ensign could be considered by this committee and perhaps they could suggest a modified red ensign that could be placed on the referendum. Then we have the three maple leaf flag. It could be considered as it is or perhaps suggestions may be made to modify it, such as those made by A. Y. Jackson. Perhaps his design could be considered, and a final recommendation brought forward. Then we come to the one maple leaf design. Of course, there are hundreds of one maple leaf designs. Perhaps if this committee could not agree on a design they could at least narrow down the number of one maple leaf designs. All these designs could be put on the ballot.
Then I believe the committee should report to the house and this question should be put to a referendum. This issue should be taken out of the House of Commons and referred to the people as a whole. If even a small group cannot decide amongst themselves, then we in this larger House of Commons have little hope of reaching agreement on a design. I feel that if this committee chose these four designs and then the people declared themselves on those designs, the design chosen by the people would automatically become the flag. I think the suggestions made from this side of the house are worthy of consideration. I believe the very fact that we are willing to give the people this scope, and are willing to accept the decision which the people may make, whatever it may De, certainly shows that we are not so stubborn or so rigid in connection with one design that if the people of Canada as a whole voiced their opinion, we would not be willing to accept it.

Canadian Flag
Surely that is the spirit of compromise. I do not believe we have to apologize for it. I think that is the spirit in which we must consider this question. I see my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. Incidentally, the Winnipeg Free Press, which is certainly one of the greatest supporters of the Liberal party, says in its editorial of August 21:
Thus a national flag is being bom in the worst possible circumstances-in political bitterness, party strife and parliamentary manoeuvring. The outcome could easily be a flag that would be looked on by many not as a symbol of national unity but as a political flag of divisiveness and controversy.
Farther down, the editorial reads:
Why could not Mr. Pearson-in the hope of securing some harmony within parliament-ask to refer the flag motion to a parliamentary committee composed of representatives of all parties?
Then, it goes on:
-it would give parliament a voice in choosing a national flag...
And farther down it says:
-would make a start towards restoring public respect for parliament.
What we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is being asked in the spirit of compromise which has been accepted by the leader of the Liberal party and the Prime Minister, by shifting his position from time to time. I do not consider it is dishonourable to do that. I think he must shift his position once more if he is really interested in the unity of this country. I am not so old and so bound to tradition that I am unable to sense that I must exhibit a spirit of understanding and compromise, if this nation is to emerge united and strong after this debate. I am not so young that I do not feel a sense of loyalty or devotion to the symbols which have signified and represented something of the richness and uniqueness of my country. I recall the credo of the Progressive Conservative party which is contained in the phrase, "The vision to create, the courage to retain." I think if anyone searches within himself for a guideline to direct his thinking to contribute more to the interest of Canada and all Canadians, then that is a very worthy one to remember. I think if we directed our thoughts along the lines of that phrase, we could contribute more to the interest of Canada and of Canadians than if we were to apply any other philosophy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a unifying symbol in a country that is itself not unified. This was stated in one editorial. Perhaps it was the thought of the Prime Minister that at this time when the very threads of confederation seem to be bursting, that the

various opposing elements in this country could unify behind a symbol of Canada such as a flag. This may be a legitimate desire on the part of the Prime Minister in introducing this resolution. However, just as the bicultural commission, instead of unifying the country has already tended to crystallize the English and French apart from one another, and at the same time has sent a wave of nationalism through the other ethnic groups which was not evident before, so the introduction of the flag resolution has tended to divide this country along Anglo-Saxon and French lines.
Because of this, like many speakers before me I deplore this debate taking place. I deplore that the Prime Minister has not seen fit to postpone the flag debate until there is more evidence of unity in the country and when the rallying around a flag would be more natural. The introduction of a flag should be at a time when jealousy and distrust and hatred are at their lowest ebb. That is not the case today.
Because I am neither of Anglo-Saxon nor of French origin, I deplore more than most the fruitless, the useless and the damaging forces that have been set forth in this flag debate. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) has already expressed not the joy but the sadness of those of us who are considered the third element in Canada to see the two factions at loggerheads with one another, especially when these two factions, whether accurately or inaccurately, are considered the founding races in Canada.
Also, in making a contribution to this debate I would like to say that too many Anglo-Saxons and too many French people forget that they are not the only ones in Canada. Today, just as in this House of Commons, every group is a minority, with the Anglo-Saxons, the French, and the other groups combined forming almost equal factions. The fact that Canada is a country of minorities has often made me feel proud because I could see so much unity in the diversity about us, until lately. I grew up in the west where people settled in colonies of Ukrainians, Germans, Polish and French, and it may be interesting to note that in my own riding I have more Indians than I have people of French origin, although we do have a few communities of French people-and I may say they are very fine people.
I might digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to read a letter from one of our original citizens, the Indians. This letter is significant because it comes from one of the seven Indian chiefs I have in my riding, a man who

was a past chief of the Indian Brotherhood of Canada, and in his letter he says:
I have just returned from a meeting in Winnipeg. We were shown the proposed new flag. None of the chiefs like it. They wanted to know where the union jack was. It is the flag of our Queen and should be part of the flag of Canada. All of the chiefs in Manitoba wanted the red ensign to be the official flag of Canada. Please speak for us on this point.
I am enclosing a petition of the people on my reserve.
In the Toronto Telegram of June 13 there was a letter to the editor from a Peter Jackson, headed "Indian Treaties in Jeopardy." It read as follows:
Apart from other aspects of the flag situation in Canada, as an Indian I am deeply concerned about the apparent determination of the government to impose a new national flag on the Canadian people.
I am fully conscious of the significance of the union jack in some form to the majority of Indians in Canada. Most of the treaties which Indians signed included a reference to the "flag", then the full union jack, and the final approval of these treaties involved the presentation of a flag to the Indian tribes concerned as an earnest of good faith.
The present proposal of a flag bearing only a few maple leaves is very disturbing as it appears to place in jeopardy the treaties signed in the past for "as long as the grass grows, the sun shines and the flag flows in the breeze."
Certainly no Indians, nor Eskimos, have been consulted about a Canadian flag, and, for Indians at least, it has a greater significance than to any other people in the dominion.
Perhaps this again is a reason why we should have a referendum.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let him go on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret there were some noes, so the hon. member does not have unanimous consent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the suggestions made this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we be given an opportunity to express ourselves fully, would it not be wise to let those who are participating in this debate have extended time to do so, rather than being chopped off by those who are not participating at all?
Canadian Flag


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may make a suggestion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on the same point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would suggest that we do allow the hon. gentleman to continue his speech, and that we agree to sit for that many extra minutes after 10.30 so that no time will be lost.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Speaker, for at least 15 days now, we have had the opportunity on many occasions to listen to various speeches which are a continuous repetition. I think we are so used to the same things repeated by many hon. members that, in my opinion, the hon. member who now has the floor should have had plenty of time to express his views. Consequently, since his time period has now expired, I object once again to its extension. [Text]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is obviously not unanimous agreement.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks, I should like to say that I do not approve, nor does my party, of the delaying tactics which were used, starting December 17, 1962, to prevent the then prime minister to complete the answers he had started to give to the then leader of the opposition.


Mr. Habel:: Judgment has been passed on that.


Georges-J. Valade: We recall the incident very clearly. We are not going to resort to tactics which we did not approve then and which are not approved now by the people.
Those who think that we are filibustering by taking part in this important debate are unfair and are only showing their lack of interest or, worse still, trying to explain their silence to the house and the people.


Lucien Plourde: You are the ones who do not care.


Georges-J. Valade: After only 15 days of debate, nobody should speak of obstruction regarding a matter of such importance. We, of the opposition, are conscientiously doing our duty-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Georges-J. Valade: -as honestly as possible-

Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Georges-J. Valade: -and I would even go so far as to say, in reply to the Creditistes who have just uttered those sounds, that we have never contradicted ourselves on such a vital issue as the choice of a distinctive Canadian flag.
On the contrary, it is those who refuse to speak in this house-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Georges-J. Valade: -it is those who refuse to take a stand according to their conscience-


David Réal Caouette: May I put a question to the hon. member?


An hon. Member:: Certainly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. Mary has the floor and, obviously, he does not wish to reply.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like, at this time, to ask a question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Mary has the floor.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, the reason I do not wish to reply now to the hon. member for Villeneuve is that I intend to do so in the course of my speech, which is the thing to do, because we of the official opposition are getting sick and tired of hearing the irrelevant remarks some people are making instead of taking their responsibilities, in this house, on such a vital issue, one which should bind the conscience of every member, as this proposal of a distinctive Canadian flag.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: I repeat that those who are not that conscientious and who prevent a member of the house from expressing his views on that project fail to discharge their responsibilities, not only toward their own party but also towards those who elected them to be represented honestly and conscientiously-


Gérard Perron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Beauce raises a point of order.


Gérard Perron: In my opinion, the hon. member for St. Mary is not entitled any more than the others to impute motives to members of this house.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the point of order is as stupid as the hon. member who raised it, because we did not

take the position in this house of preventing any Creditiste member from speaking in this chamber.


Gérard Perron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Georges-J. Valade: I submit that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Beauce raised a point of order again.


Gérard Perron: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member for St. Mary says that they never prevented any other member from speaking and from saying what he had to say, I want to recall to him that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr Churchill), the opposition house leader refused the member for Villeneuve the privilege of continuing a speech after the time limit granted to him.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, as for the point of order, I wish to say that all those interruptions have taken about three or four minutes of my time and I would ask you to allow me a few minutes longer after my time is up.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the hon. members opposite that I do not intend to show as much moderation in my remarks as my colleague who has just resumed his seat, for he does not have to put up with this flow of propaganda organized by the Liberal machine-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: *-so that this flag issue may become simply and purely a partisan issue.


David Réal Caouette: Talk about the subamendment.


Georges-J. Valade: I am coming to it and I can assure you that you will be surprised.


David Réal Caouette: Let us hear it.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, throughout all the years I have been in this house, I never had to read my speech, but in view of present circumstances and of possible misinterpretations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would ask you to call the hon. members to order. I take this opportunity to tell them that when the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), who is assistant whip of the Liberal party, read his speech, we did not interrupt him in any way at any time.


Auguste Choquette: Because he made an intelligent speech.


Mr. Vincenl:: We let him read his speech to the end. I would therefore ask you to call the hon. members to order. They should be as polite with the members of the opposition as were the latter with the government supporters.


Georges-J. Valade: I wish to point out to the many visitors listening in the galleries that the members of the Liberal party and the minor parties behave like school children during this debate on the flag issue. They show partisanship in their interjections, because instead of rising and stating their point of view, they have incessantly interrupted and insulted me, but I do not worry because they are too low to reach me. I think that they show the depth of their genius and their broad-mindness.
Mr. Speaker, the debate on a national distinctive flag exceeds in my opinion the scope of ordinary legislation coming under administrative responsibilities. It is a question which affects those who are not affected by a piece of legislation and I am thinking of those who, on account of their age, are out of the reach of existing laws. The choice of a distinctive national flag has this characteristic; it concerns every citizen of Canada for centuries to come.
What we should deplore most is the turn taken by the debate because of the blunder made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in steeping the flag issue in political partisanship. The introduction of the resolution as an ultimatum including the adoption of two flags in the statutes of Canada as well as two national anthems-


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


Georges-J. Valade: -is, at once, unacceptable to any member worthy of this name.
Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order; it is all part of dilatory measures of obstruction.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is prohibited to read a speech and, what is more, a speech written by someone else. It is obvious that this speech was written by Mr. Allard.


Georges-J. Valade: This is a kind of stupidity which shows the hon. member's personality. Not only does he annoy his own government, but he annoys all hon. members of the house and the people who elected him; they will get rid of him, I am convinced, at the next election, because he has shown no seriousness in any of his interventions. If he had the courage of his convictions, he would stand up after me and endeavour to justify himself by suggesting a 20220-466
Canadian Flag
means to solve the dilemma in which the Prime Minister himself placed us, by his own will and awkwardness. I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to yield to those dilatory tactics taken by government members to shorten my time. We are all well aware of those tactics.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member be kind enough to resume his seat?


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat and I would suggest to the hon. members for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) and Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) that perhaps it would be favourable to the progress of our business of the house to forget for a moment the personal remarks exchanged between the two hon. members and to restrict ourselves to the consideration of the subject now before the house.


Georges-J. Valade: I am precisely establishing a preamble but since the beginning of my remarks the government members and the members of the splinter parties have been continuously interrupting me. I did not make any attack against any member. I am here to submit a viewpoint and, as a member, I have the right to be respected. Mr. Speaker has the duty to silence those who want to muzzle me. Besides, I do not intend to be impressed by such manoeuvres and such tactics.


Auguste Choquette: Who wrote your speech?


Georges-J. Valade: If the hon. member happened to be elected by having his speeches written, at least he should not accuse others-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have never read a speech in this house at any time, still less a speech written by someone else.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I say that it is the practice and the custom that when the Speaker rises, members must resume their seats.
Once more I urge both hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and restrict themselves to the consideration of the resolution now before the house. I would ask the hon. member for St. Mary to deal with the proposal under study.


Georges-J. Valade: I am precisely dealing with the resolution and the subamendment, and I think that much scope has been given to all members of the house, and especially to the hon.

Canadian Flag
members for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) and Carleton (Mr. Francis) and to all other government members. I do not understand why those ridiculous interjections are made by Liberal members.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet spoken in this house on this question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. One member only can be recognized at a time. The hon. member for Carleton has the floor on a question of privilege. Perhaps he should be heard first.


John George Diefenbaker: It should be pointed out to the hon. member for Carleton, just as a lesson in procedure, that he did not make this interruption from his seat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He is now speaking from his own seat.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I wish to point out that I have not participated in the flag debate so far. I understood the hon. member to say I had.


Georges-J. Valade: I think the hon. member is now making an interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to go on to say that if we are now facing a difficult situation in this house, it is because the man who received the Nobel peace award, since it was said that he had showed great qualities as a mediator on the international scene-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Georges-J. Valade: I am glad to hear this applause, because that man, as I was saying, proved to be unable to settle, in his own country, a situation as delicate as the flag issue and he introduced in this house a solution that produced confusion.
If I accuse the Prime Minister of such misconduct, it is because he was very keen on introducing under his own name a proposal which should have been kept outside party lines.
However, he is not the only one responsible. Pressed by the panicky mob of his supporters who saw their political ambitions fade away at the thought of a general election, he abandoned principle for partisan strategy.
Mr. Speaker, our country has never experienced so much uneasiness as it has since this Liberal administration took office.
Retreats, reversals, abdication of principles have shaken the confidence of the people in

the authority of the government, and separatism exploded under this irresponsible administration.
Why, Mr. Speaker? Because French Canadians felt they were let down by co-operative federalism and by the retreats of the Prime Minister.
How can the Canadian people have confidence-


Auguste Choquette: Who wrote this speech?


Georges-J. Valade: -in a man who, on May 19, 1964, said about the flag:
I have pointed out, and I think I should make it quite clear, that when the government submits to parliament a matter of policy-


Auguste Choquette: On a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: -parliament must-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has raised a point of order.


Auguste Choquette: On a point of order. I ask that the lights be put out in order to prevent the hon. member from reading the text written by somebody else.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to put out the lights, the hon. member is already in the dark.
Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say that the Prime Minister, when he introduced his resolution on June 19, stated that a principle was involved and that the government would stand or fall on the decision of the house.
And now that man, going back on that principle, told us a few days ago: The vote on the flag issue will not be considered by the government as a vote of confidence.
As stated by Mr. Claude Ryan in that same editorial of Le Devoir of August 22 last:
We wonder if a man is serious when he says, one day, that there is a principle involved in a certain question and, the next, changes his views.
Further on, Mr. Ryan states:
We sincerely believe that there is nothing more serious than the public reversal by the head of a state on a question of principle.
Not only has the Prime Minister contradicted himself on a question of principle, but he has lied openly. This charge is not made by myself but by two of his colleagues, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) and the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), who said as much during their participation in the debate, when they stated that the Prime Minister had not told the truth when he claimed that he had consulted the Liberal caucus on the choice of the three maple leaves.

Mr. Speaker, why did the Prime Minister not think of including in his flag a symbol showing that our country is Christian?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Georges-J. Valade: I see that some people shrink at the thought of including a Christian symbol on the flag, but that does not surprise me on the part of some hon. members opposite.
Mr. Speaker, would the reason be found in the news item published in the great Montreal paper La Presse in 1955, on the second page-


Auguste Choquette: Who wrote that speech?


Georges-J. Valade: Toronto, 1955. Press release of the Canadian Press.
The Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Canadian secretary of state for external affairs, stated yesterday evening that he doubted that organized Christian religion would be able to unite the peoples of the world.
And he listed the weak points which prevent Christendom from accomplishing such a task.
Past experience makes us question the importance of the part played by organized Christian religion in recognizing that interdependence of nations, which will lead to greater unification in the world.
And the release adds, that, according to Mr. Pearson:
The truth is that after 2,000 years, Christianity remains the religion of a comparatively small minority. Though missionary zeal is often praiseworthy, adds Mr. Pearson, it often results in contempt for other people's beliefs.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the reasons which perhaps caused the Prime Minister to omit in his distinctive Canadian flag design all Christian symbols which might honour this country among Christian nations.


Auguste Choquette: Who wrote that speech?


Georges-J. Valade: Certainly not the hon. member for Lotbiniere, who would be too stupid to do so.
The Prime Minister has sown the seed of mistrust, and he has shaken-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker-


Georges-J. Valade: -he has shaken the confidence of the people in the function-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Lotbiniere raising a point of order?


Auguste Choquette: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
A lot of things have been tolerated in this debate. But now the hon. member is accusing
20220-466i
Canadian Flag
the Prime Minister of lying. Earlier, he called the hon. member for Quebec East a fool and now, he is calling me an idiot.
I understand that when he is reading the speech of Mr. Allard, his vocabulary is more proper; but when he speaks on his own, he loses his head and uses coarse language.
I ask him to withdraw and to speak as a parliamentarian and not as a member of parliament who will be defeated in the next election.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege-


William Skoreyko: I cannot see, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. A question of privilege has been raised by the hon. member-


William Skoreyko: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before the two hon. members who are now standing proceed any further I would ask them to resume their seats. Would the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) kindly resume his seat. The Chair should be allowed to make a ruling immediately. I believe no question of privilege has been raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). I do not think the epithet used by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) is unparliamentary.


William Skoreyko: With great deference, Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege I would say that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) took offence at the words used by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade). The hon. member for Lotbiniere said the hon. member for St. Mary used the words "a fool". If the hon. member for St. Mary recognized certain qualities in that particular member, I do not see why he should take offence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suggest that very little has been added to the question by the intervention of the hon. member. A ruling has been made that there is no question of privilege. The hon. member for St. Mary has the floor.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Villeneuve rise on another question of privilege?

Canadian Flag


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, here is my question of privilege. While the hon. member for St. Mary talked about Christianity and the need for more Christianity in Canada giving us quotations of 2,000 years ago, he called the hon. member for Lotbiniere a fool. I say this. Although for the last 2,000 years the same Bible has been preached in Canada and elsewhere, there are still people like the hon. member for St. Mary who incur damnation every day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the co-operation of all hon. members not to raise alleged questions of privilege or points of order to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor and who is entitled to be heard without interruption.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all members on this side of the house. My question of privilege arises out of the remarks of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) when he referred to reading speeches in this house. I want to point out that the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean) the other afternoon never took his nose out of his notes, and that is a far cry from what the hon. member who now has the floor is doing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. For the third, fourth or fifth consecutive time, there is obviously no question of privilege whatsoever and I fail to see how hon. members' privileges are affected by the point raised at this time. I again ask the co-operation of all hon. members to allow the hon. member for St. Mary to continue his remarks uninterrupted.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I now rise on a question of personal privilege myself. I would like to submit to Your Honour that I have been continually interrupted while making my speech.
I have been insulted, although I do not care from which corner these insults come. I think these people are causing more disruption and obstruction by their interventions in these proceedings than we ever did in the house. I think the time they have taken by these interferences should be given to me to compensate for the injustices now being caused to me.

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry for having said-First of all, I did not use the words imputed to me by the hon. member for Lotbiniere to the effect that I said that the Prime

Minister had lied. I said that it had been said by his own colleagues.
I am sorry for having said that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is a fool and is completely lacking in intelligence; I am sorry for having said that the hon. member for Ville-neauve is lacking judgment. I never spoke so many truths in so short a time. I hope that the house will put up with me.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Prime Minister because of the procedure he followed in introducing this resolution in the house, sowed distrust. He shook up forever the confidence of the people for the function he represents or which he should represent.
The man who once said:
That he preferred to live under the communist yoke rather than be killed by the atomic bomb-
-once again showed an uncommon weakness.
If the Prime Minister was not afraid to face an election, he would not have backed down. Therefore, it is not judgment which motivates his decisions, but fear. And fear is a rather bad adviser.
The Prime Minister was, at first, afraid to lose face. That is why he did not consult the party chiefs. He was afraid of an election, and that is why he sullied the matter of principle. He was afraid of being overthrown by his own members on the second part of his resolution, with regard to the adoption of the union jack as a second flag; that is the reason why he avoided the confidence vote.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) has become the official propagator-I mean official propagandist-of the Liberal government-


Auguste Choquette: Not propagator, but propagandist. You do not know how to read.


Georges-J. Valade: The hon. member for Lotbiniere does not understand what I am saying-*


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member for St. Mary cannot read.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Lotbiniere is a neurotic, I shall ask him to leave the house or to respect those who have the floor, as well as your authority.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to prevent the stupid member for Lotbiniere from interrupting me at every turn for nothing.


Auguste Choquette: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere rises to a question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, we are all fed
up of hearing the hon. member using abusive language and insulting everybody, calling one stupid and the other idiot.
I cannot understand that you should have ruled that such language was parliamentary. The hon. member uses coarse language when he does not read the speech of Mr. Allard. I would ask him to read correctly the speech written by Mr. Maurice Allard; that is all I want. He should abide by the rules, be polite and refrain from using coarse language.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. Mary.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, now that the show is over, I will proceed with my remarks.
For the past few days, service stations have been able to write to the Prime Minister, attention of the Minister without Portfolio, to obtain at low cost, pennants, flags, beer mugs and shields with the three maple leaves of the Prime Minister.
If supplies run short, the minister may import some at short notice from Japan, because deliveries are made very quickly.
The three-leaf flag has become a profitable business for the traffickers of the country. The government has suddenly become a distributor of souvenirs. It is even surprising that the Minister without Portfolio is not seen with a cart in front of the parliament buildings auctioning the Pearson's proposal to visitors.
We, on this side of the house, want a distinctive Canadian flag-


Auguste Choquette: Now, you are reading much better.


Georges-J. Valade: You are now speaking better yourself.
As far as I am concerned, I shall vote for a distinctive flag of which we can be proud, a flag that we shall display with pride, that we shall respect and which will be respected throughout the world; in short, a flag that will make us feel Canadians first and foremost.
But how could we be proud of the Prime Minister's suggestion if it has to be forced upon us by a majority vote when it has been soiled by the partisan ambitions of the Liberals or by amateur hucksters.
If the Prime Minister is really sincere about his distinctive Canadian flag project, he should leave partisanship out of it. He should accept alternatives reflecting the aspirations of the Canadian people in this matter.
Canadian Flag
I have expressed my views several times on this question. Several Conservative members expressed their views on it in the house between 1958 and 1962. Those many suggestions on a Canadian flag were made by Conservative members who were then in power and not afraid of assuming their responsibilities, and they were respected by the leader of their party, the then prime minister and present Leader of the Opposition.
Never did we get, from the Liberal opposition of the day, any suggestion for a distinctive Canadian flag, but we, the Conservatives, got down to work.
We began to find a solution to that problem which had been neglected for 22 years, under the careless Liberal administration of our friends opposite.
Mr. Speaker, we now have to deal with a subamendment-


An hon. Member:: About time.


Georges-J. Valade: In my opinion, it is imperative-and I think my friends' time will not be wasted-to bring to light now the conflicting stands taken by certain hon. members or party leaders, just to show to what extent this debate has managed to distort the objective we should all strive to achieve.
On the question of the referendum, for instance, the Ralliement Creditiste have actually disowned their past and their constituents. The member for Villeneuve, a few moments ago, intervened in the debate and he accused the opposition of trying to filibuster in this debate by proposing a referendum.
Now, on March 5, 1963, during a meeting he held in Montreal, with all his candidates of the island of Montreal, he said that if his party came into office, he would call a referendum on the question of a national flag within six months. And here is the man and his party-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish the hon. member for St. Mary would have the honesty to quote word for word what I said about a distinctive national flag in 1963, because he is mistaken. Someone else said that within six months a plebiscite or referendum would be requested or held to choose a flag. If the hon. member for St. Mary claims that the hon. member for Villeneuve himself requested a plebiscite, he is lying barefacedly before all hon. members of the house.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to have the charges laid by the hon. member for Villeneuve withdrawn because, according to Beauchesne's, when an hon. member rises

Canadian Flag
in the house, he is responsible tor what he says and if he must submit evidence to support his remarks, otherwise he can be accused of lying.


David Réal Caouette: Give us proof.


Georges-J. Valade: In reply to the hon. member for Villeneuve, I have here an article from the March 5, 1962 issue of La Presse, which reads thus:
Mr. Caouette's promise.
A referendum within six months on the flag issue.
It is written out in full and for the future guidance of the hon. member for Villeneuve, here is what it says:
Six months after coming into power, the Credi-tistes will ask the Canadian people, by way of a referendum, to choose a distinctive national flag.
Such was the statement made on Sunday afternoon by Mr. Beal Caouette, national associate leader of the Social Credit party, who was the chief speaker at a big Social Credit meeting in Montreal.
Should the hon. member wish me to keep on reading, I will give the names of all the candidates attending that meeting.


David Réal Caouette: Name them.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Georges-J. Valade: I think that when the hon. member for Villeneuve accuses me of lying, I wonder who is the liar in view of the evidence. I shall not require an answer, for charity's sake.
Mr. Speaker, on this matter of a referendum the hon. member for Villeneuve is not the only one who has taken a contradictory stand. On January 23, 1961-and I see the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) taking out his references-on January 23, 1961 in the house, the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, seconded the former member for St. Boniface, Mr. Laurier Regnier, who moved a bill to provide for a referendum concerning the adoption of a Canadian distinctive flag. The Minister without Portfolio supported this resolution; but now that he is a member of the cabinet, he rejects the proposal for a referendum. Such a contradictory stand is not in accordance with the soundness and sincerity we should bring into the debate concerning the adoption of a distinctive national flag.
I believe that if our hon. colleagues on the opposite side, as well as the members of the smaller parties, have not got enough courage to rise in this house and express clearly and positively their points of view on the flag

issue, but are satisfied with mere interjecting or charging the official opposition with filibustering, I believe they are dishonest and their present stand is contrary to the dictates of their conscience, for in taking such an attitude, they only prejudice the cause they should support, that is to gain the confidence of the people in their members by discharging their responsibilities and their duty as representatives of the people and the Canadian population.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member has been wriggling for 20 minutes-


Yvon Dupuis: No, for 45 minutes.


David Réal Caouette: -for 45 minutes-


Auguste Choquette: This is Mr. Allard's speech.


David Réal Caouette: We do not know where he is heading. Could he tell us exactly whether he is in favour of a referendum? In favour of a distinctive national flag?


An hon. Member:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: What does he favour? We wish we knew.


Auguste Choquette: That is something you
would have to ask Mr. Allard because he is the one who wrote that speech.


Georges-J. Valade: If the hon. member cannot see what I am getting at, we know even less what he stands for since, he is now against a referendum whereas he was in favour of it during the election campaign. The same thing goes for the Minister without Portfolio. At the time, he was in favour of a referendum; now he is against it.
By expressing my opinion on this question, I am taking my responsibilities-


David Réal Caouette: Which question?


Georges-J. Valade: -and I am exposing the treachery of those who make believe that they are sincerely opposed to the Conservative proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for Villeneuve to remain seated and to stop bothering me. He can speak after I am through and I shall answer-


David Réal Caouette: And I am going to give you a good licking too.


Georges-J. Valade: The Creditiste candidate lost his deposit in my riding.


David Réal Caouette: Wait until the next election.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking precisely on the subamendment, that is on the referendum and my hon. friend is wondering why I do not deal with the matter under consideration. Then if the hon. member is dishonest enough to impute to others the faults he may have made himself, he should have the courage to repeat his statement and assume the responsibility of his assertions. If he does so, I will summon him before the committee on privileges and elections.


An hon. Member:: As the union nationale.


Georges-J. Valade: I know that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is a pain in the neck for the Prime Minister and parliament and I hope he will have medical treatment before too long.
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had appreciated that before introducing the flag resolution, it would have been better first to agree on the definition of the term which in my opinion give rise to all his troubles, he would have realized that it was necessary to determine what is meant by the word "distinctive".
For some of my English speaking compatriots, the word "distinctive" has quite a different meaning than for French speaking people.
For them, it can be an alteration of the red ensign, with also a symbol reminding us of the participation of French Canadians on an equal basis. If they are sincere-and I think they are-they are entitled to this opinion. But I feel that while respecting this viewpoint, we must admit that it is neither in harmony with the desire of the majority of the people nor able to establish a real Canadian spirit and to unite all ethnical elements in our country.
For us, French Canadians, this word "distinctive" means something which would not include any sign or symbol of dependence on another country.
We want to be first of all Canadians, proud of our origins, proud of our history. Confident in our future, we ought to accept nothing less than a flag which would be truly ours, which nobody might confuse with another one. Hoisted throughout the world, it will have to be the symbol of a nation on a par with the great powers. And it will open for us the doors to international discussions on an equal basis.
A flag including a foreign emblem would be likely to lower our prestige in the world. It would prove that we are not yet free from
Canadian Flag
our colonial status, while in fact the Statute of Westminster of 1931 freed us from this stigma.
How can we talk of repatriating our constitution if we have not acquired yet the patriotic maturity required?
Do we suffer from a lack of patriotism? Should we not put our country above everything else? If we are able to answer yes readily to all those questions, we cannot accept anything but a truly distinctive national flag without any symbol of subservience.
But if our heart, our feelings, our attachment are not entirely centred on our country, we are not mature enough to ask for a truly Canadian flag and we should talk even less of total Canadianism.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to submit to the house the ten commandments we would be wise to observe if we want to reach a settlement on the flag question. Perhaps I should have submitted them earlier, for our hon. friends opposite would have then controlled their temper.
The commandments would be as follows:
1.	Establish our good faith, explicitly.
2.	Speak on behalf of our constituents, courageously.
3.	Avoid offending remarks, conscientiously.
4.	Eliminate the racial question, obviously.
5.	Avoid claiming that a Canadian distinctive flag is a concession to Quebec, naturally.
6.	Co-operate in finding an acceptable solution, sincerely.
7.	Express our views, freely.
8.	Refrain from distributing the three-leaf flag indiscriminately.
9.	Liberals should express their views, honestly.
10.	Do our duty as we should in this parliament assembly.


Auguste Choquette: And the hon. member should sit down, slowly.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, to end this deadlock, the Prime Minister should accept an alternative; he should prove his goodwill to the people by withdrawing his three maple leaves and accepting a compromise meeting the wishes and the aspirations of the Canadian people.
Many hon. members found quite enticing the suggestion made the other night by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent). In fact, many colleagues told me they were quite ready to accept a flag bearing one green maple leaf which would in a way

Canadian Flag
recall the history of our country, a symbol which would not be a symbol of division but one of national unity. The maple leaf identifies Canadian people everywhere in the world, as at the Olympic games for instance. When our athletes go abroad, they wear a maple leaf on their uniforms and this is how they are identified as Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Georges-J. Valade: The maple leaf is an accepted symbol, but there has never been three maple leaves on coats of arms, jackets or uniforms of our representatives abroad. And I hope that the Prime Minister, if he wants to show his sincerity in coming to an agreement on that question, will accept this alternative and change his flag so that it will be acceptable everywhere.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, obviously I do not intend tonight to speak on the merit of the resolution which is before the house. I plead guilty; I was the first to object, for the purposes of the discussion which followed the introduction of the subamendment, to speeches foreign to that measure.
Therefore, tonight I will keep strictly to the question of procedure, that is to the question of deciding which procedure must be admitted in a effort to put an end to the debate which has been going on for so long already.
[Texti
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made certain suggestions about the conduct of the business which, if I am restating them correctly, were as follows: First, the official opposition is to state clearly their intentions in this debate. Then, he asked the government to take those intentions into consideration. He then urged the government to Jo three things: 1. To sit it out without any indication of closure of any kind; 2. To keep the door open for compromise; 3. To plan the week's business from now on with Mondays taken for legislation, Fridays for estimates and the other three days for the flag debate. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) commented on this suggestion in these words: "Accepted here and now; it is up to the government."
In the early part of his speech, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested that if the official opposition wanted a prolonged debate for the purpose of bringing out every aspect of the flag question the hours of
[Mr. Valade.I
sitting should be extended. I am going to respond to this suggestion here and now on behalf of the government. We would, of course, be glad to get on with other legislation. We think the best way of doing that is to get the flag debate over with. But if that is not possible, we are not prepared to have the time available for the flag debate in each week reduced.
However, there is one way in which the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could easily be carried out right away. The government would be prepared, if the house will agree, to sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, in the evening, eight to midnight. In this fashion the number of hours available for the flag debate would not be reduced. The government then would be only too happy to reserve Mondays for other legislation, on the understanding that the flag debate will be concluded by the end of September.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Go away; by the end of September.


John George Diefenbaker: Same old nonsense.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Just a different type of closure.


Guy Favreau: I am asking all hon. members to give serious thought to these proposals. I shall try to arrange a meeting of the house leaders of the various parties, tomorrow if possible, with a view to seeing whether they could not be put into effect next week. I hope this ready acceptance by the government of suggestions made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will be ample evidence that the government is keeping the door open and is ready to consider any reasonable course in relation to the present debate.


Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, as has been quite obvious, it was not my intention to enter this debate at this stage of the proceedings. I think it has been amply demonstrated that my colleagues in the New Democratic party take the same stand. However there comes a time when your concern for your country can no longer allow you to remain quiet. Certainly, the performance of this parliament from the time it opened last February, and more and more in recent months and weeks, leads anyone who has any concern for his country to stop and do some thinking. I think this concern is very well summed up in an article that came to my desk today, and what surprises me is that I think this is the first article this particular writer has ever written with which I could

agree. I am referring to Mr. Lubor J. Zink, and I would like to read his article at this time. He says:
It is safe to assume that, as a result of partisan exploitation of dormant nationalistic sentiments, the flag controversy is by now seen by many Canadians as a symbol of English-French rivalry. In this perversion of the search for a distinct expression of Canada's final stage in her evolution from colony to full independence, most Quebeckers tend to regard the ensign as a reminder of English dominance which they are no longer willing to tolerate. Conversely, English speaking Canadians are led to believe that the maple leaf flag denotes Ottawa's betrayal of all they hold sacred in their heritage. The new flag, they are told by those who call it sneeringly "Pearson pennant," symbolizes Grit abject appeasement of and sellout to the French.
All this sowing of nationalistic mistrust, which cannot but produce a harvest of hatred and strife, is done by allegedly rational men motivated by visions of a strong, united Canada.
One cannot but wonder what goes on the in the minds of these blindly partisan politicians when in the same breath they deplore the fanning of nationalistic ferment in places such as Cyprus. There they say irresponsibly inflamed passions must give way to reason. The world cannot tolerate old enmities to play havoc with peace.
At home, apparently it's different. And when the P.M. at the request of an opposition M.P., calls a meeting of party leaders to see if some acceptable way out of the impasse could be found, the attempt is described by his chief political rival as a sign of weakness.
In this atmosphere no honourable compromise seems possible, unless the electorate shows more sanity than its elected representatives and forces them, through grass root pressure within each political party, to stop acting like a bunch of Makarioses.
I cannot help but wonder, would we have reached the situation we find ourselves in at present if, for example, we had a system like they have in Norway, where the calling of an election is taken out of the hands of the prime minister, where the calling of an election cannot be forced by an obstinate opposition, where they have a party system similiar to ours but where they hold an election every four years, and in the interval they run the business of the country and do not fight the next election every day in the house of commons, as we have seen here for months past.
How did we get in this position? It started out with the stupidity of the way the Prime Minister introduced the flag resolution, where he used his position to present his own choice of a flag and tried to shove it down the throat of the House of Commons when, by admission of one of his own colleagues, it was not even cleared in his own caucus. I cannot think of anything more stupid.
Canadian Flag
I will say that it is to his credit that he has had the common sense to back away from the position he took originally. I wish the same common sense would be shown by others. But just what happened from there? Then the ball was tossed to the Leader of the Opposition, and obsessed with his mad idea that by some design of destiny he is supposed to be prime minister in 1967-Sir John A. in 1867; Sir John D. in 1967-because of this madness he appears to be prepared to destroy this parliament and with it to destroy this country by turning English against French and vice-versa.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I thought you had a little sense.


Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: Unfortunately I thought some of the others had a little sense, but they have proven they have not.
After five months of frustration in this present session we had the rare good fortune of having the Leader of the Opposition ill for two days and away from the house, and in those two days, as everyone knows, we accomplished more than we had in the two previous months. Then a week or two after that we were blessed again. The Prime Minister went to England for a week, and during that week we cleared everything but three items of the order paper.
I think that the best thing we could do, both for the benefit of this house and the country, is if we could send both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition away for two weeks. Then maybe we could get on with the business of the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Send them to Hull-spelled H-u-1-1.


Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I can possibly best sum up with a few words of doggerel:
The Flag Furore of '64.
On parliament hill, we now have a bill
To provide a new flag for our land.
Letters thick, letters thin just keep pouring in
Urging M.P.'s to take up a stand.
With Mike's maple leaves three many do not agree
Some like one, some a dozen or more.
While some would go back to the old union jack,
Some dropping the ensign deplore.
But I hope you'll agree, as you listen to me,
We have more urgent problems than this.
Automation we've found makes the workless abound,
Our economy's still hit and miss.
It would take some vast sums to clear up our slums,
We need medicare, pensions and all.

Canadian Flag
And we surely are fools if we think that our schools.
Can cope with our children this fall.
As on this we reflect I most strongly suspect,
That all this flag fuss and furore;
Has been started I'll bet to make people forget
The grim future we all have in store.
If we don't toe the line, while still there is time,
A red herring, upon a smokescreen,
Is the suitable rag we should wave for a flag,
In a country that just might have been.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) has raised the level of this debate from a non-partisan level, perhaps it will change the line of approach that I had intended to take during my intervention at this time. Then also we had one of those rare occasions during the course of the flag debate when we had an intervention on the part of a minister of the crown, in the person of the government leader of the house. Unfortunately, as usual, he has completely misinterpreted the mood of the house and he has, as I understood the observations that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made this afternoon, completely misunderstood the purpose of those observations. The solution propounded by the government leader of the house is a continuation of legislation by exhaustion.
He made a grave mistake last spring by keeping the house continually in session over the Easter period.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, oh.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It was the first time in the years I have been here that members of this house were not permitted to return to their constituencies where they could get in touch with reality and refresh their viewpoint of the problems of the nation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that what is wrong with the official opposition?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am quite willing to admit that the fact we have not had an opportunity to renew contact with our constituents has resulted in the sort of mood, the intransigent mood, which prevails at the present time. But if this is a problem with the opposition, how much more must it be a problem for members and supporters of the government who seem to be completely out of touch with public opinion in this nation?

Legislation by exhaustion does not improve the processes of democracy. It is a Pavlovian technique used when the brainwashers want to break down the resistance of those they want to convert to their own opinions. I would have suspected that this suggestion might have come from the minister of propaganda, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) because this seems to be the function he is carrying out as far as his responsibility in the cabinet is concerned.
I had intended to continue this discussion along the lines pursued by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) this afternoon. He was offering to the government a way out of the impasse into which they have led parliament at this time. Certainly, as we have seen during the course of this debate, by the reaction in the country as reflected in the press and other media of information, the government should be looking for a way out. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was presenting his academic viewpoints on the paralysis of parliament at the present time he was reminded that it is the responsibility of the government to control the business of the house, and he agreed that such was the case. I asked him a question. I asked him if it was not true that when the executive arm of government, without consulting its own caucus, without consulting its members, decides to bring an issue before parliament which is not only dividing parliament but which is also dividing the nation, that the only recourse which the official opposition has in such circumstances is to bring a sense of reason to the government by means of a continuation of discussion.
There was a conference on peace, order and good government held at Couchiching a couple of weeks ago and Mr. Speaker was good enough to circulate some notes arising from that conference. I intend to quote from page two where some observations are recorded by Dr. Crick, a political scientist from the old country who was invited to speak. The document reads;
Dr. Crick agreed that a system of government should be flexible and reminded the audience that politics is the art of the possible.
I might observe at this point that the government of Canada has placed parliament in an impossible position because it has presented this house with an issue which is bound by the very nature of things to bring about divisions which are always beneath

the surface in a country which can only persist as a nation on the basis of unity in diversity. Later, Dr. Crick emphasized-
-that the functions of the institutions of the government must take account of the changing responsibilities of government, and he felt that the present crisis in British government was due to the fact that the capacity for opposition is weaker than at any period in British history. Parliament, he said, should be a continuous election campaign, a permanent hustings, and it was up to M.P.'s to supply efficient and effective criticism continually.
This is precisely what we are endeavouring to do at the present time. But parliament consists of more than the opposition. It consists also of the backbenchers supporting the government. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is concerned with the fate of parliament in the present circumstances or during a period of a continued minority, I think he should be equally concerned about the disdain which the supporters of the government are displaying, as far as their responsibilities in this chamber are concerned. They are continuing what the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) referred to as "a filibuster of silence". This has been the subject of comment in a leading article in the Winnipeg Tribune, which I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre must have seen. This silence is expressive of the worst kind of arrogant disdain for their responsibilities to their constituents. Of course I can understand their silence. They are able to say little on this issue because, as the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), recognizing his own responsibilities as a member of this house, told us. neither he nor any of the government backbenchers had been consulted on this matter. I suppose that if it were not for the rigid discipline which is maintained on the opposite side of the house they would have some observations to make on this subject which would be of interest to this house. But in the circumstances they have nothing to say.
It is more difficult to understand the silence of those who sit on the treasury benches. So far, only one minister has broken that silence, namely the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), except for the intervention tonight of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) which was not by way of throwing light on the reasons parliament had been brought to the present impasse, but rather was to offer more of the same legislation by exhaustion, an offer which will only intensify the unhappy mood which prevails in parliament at the present time.
Canadian Flag
It would seem that even members of the cabinet were not consulted on this matter, because they are not silent on the hustings even though they are silent in this house. Mr. Speaker, I read a voluminous quantity of speeches made by members of the cabinet in various parts of this nation. Indeed so many of these speeches cross my desk that I must confess I do not have time to read them all. I have had come into my hands a most interesting series of speeches made by members of the cabinet on the very subject under discussion in this house-speeches made outside the house, not in this chamber where they should have been made-and I hope to be able to put some of this helpful and useful material on the record before I conclude my observations here tonight. Obviously, with backbenchers remaining silent and members of the cabinet remaining silent, it is easy to understand why there is protest not only in this house but across the nation over the design of a distinctive national flag, to use the classical phrase, that has been presented to this house, and also the method by which it has been presented. These are the main points that have emerged in the discussion up to the present time. This is why members of the opposition are trying to be helpful in providing avenues of escape from the difficulty into which the government has gotten itself. This is not even a party flag. This is not a flag that has come out of the careful consideration of a party caucus, that has been carefully considered by the cabinet. This is a personal flag, a personal design. I do not know who were the advisers to the Prime Minister on that particular design. We know that my very good friend, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) was one of the heraldic authorities who advised on this matter. I would be suspicious of objectivity in this regard, because while the hon. member for Leeds is a very good friend of mine, he indicated during his term in opposition in this house that he was also a very zealous partisan.
Since the flag was introduced into this house there has been a lack of consistency in the government's dealing with the matter. It has vacillated in the most uncertain and confusing manner. It was brought into the house with all the bombast of electioneering flamboyance. It was said that the flag would be flying by July 1 and the challenge was issued to the opposition to move a want of confidence motion in connection with the flag. This is not the way to deal with an explosive subject

Canadian Flag
of this nature. This is inviting difficulty in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Then, Mr. Speaker, the opposition, realizing its responsibilities in such a divisive matter refused to test confidence in the government on the question. The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) accuses the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), as he did just a moment ago, of wanting an election on this issue. If we had wanted an election, we would have accepted the challenge of the Prime Minister when he invited us to move a want of confidence motion on the flag issue during our dealing with supply. The question of an election is not at stake. I could not understand why the hon. member introduced this particular thought tonight, because while it is true that the Prime Minister took fate by the forelock and said the destiny of the government would depend on the decision with regard to the flag, he again vacillated, has backed down, and an election is no longer in question on the issue. What is in question is whether the government is going to continue, to quote the immortal words of the Globe and Mail, "parliament and Canada on a collision course on this vital matter".
As the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) indicated the other evening, the concession of returning to a free vote, taking off the whips in this matter, has come too late because positions have hardened; most hon. members on the government side have declared themselves, some with great searching of souls, as was indicated by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos) who spoke the other evening as one of the few government representatives in the debate. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this concession is quite meaningless.
The question that arises is, just how are we going to get out of this present difficulty? Perhaps before we proceed to that question we should ask how we got into it. This is the question propounded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) tonight. I think it is a product of the bureaucratic mind. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that if parliament does not sort itself out we are going to transfer power to the establishment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have done so already.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Well, Mr. Speaker, this has been going on for a number of years in this country. The seat of power is being gradually 
removed from the floor of the House of Commons to the offices of the bureaucrats. This process of erosion is assisted by the silence of the government; by backbenchers who refuse to get up and express themselves on this matter. In these circumstances, this is inevitable. But the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre forgets that there are no less than six members at the highest level of the establishment who occupy cabinet positions at this time. I believe in the Maclean's magazine presentation of the Canadian establishment six of the present cabinet ministers were given the highest accolade; they were called mandarins, and the Prime Minister himself was described as one of the members of the establishment. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask this question. Perhaps the difficulty is that the establishment is too closely identified with the government and this is why they cannot see the wood for the trees. This is why they have precipitated parliament and the country into the present unhappy impasse to which we have been directing our attention.


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


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If, as he says, the establishment is so closely related to the party in power, does not that make it all the more serious for parliament to follow any course that seems to give more and more power to the establishment?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As the hon. member himself said this afternoon, it is the government that directs the course of parliament. The opposition can only direct its attention to the business that is placed before parliament by the government. As we all know, the opportunity for the opposition to initiate business in this house is restricted to the private members' hour. I think my hon. friend, who has been most active in this area of parliamentary interest, is fully aware of what a frustrating and ineffective aspect of the work of parliament is this particular part of our procedure. So if it is a case of power being transferred to the establishment, we are faced with this unhappy situation-the establishment is closely interlocked with government from the Prime Minister down.
I think we are all aware that the bureaucratic mind is something like the scientific mind. In fact, I think one of the tests of mandarin stratification in the Maclean's article was the necessity of being a Rhodes scholar, and most of the Rhodes scholars

operating in the Canadian establishment majored in social science studies. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the bureaucratic mind is very closely related to the scientific mind, which endeavours to reduce multiplicity to unity. But unfortunately if this process is carried too far in the political realm it leads inevitably to totalitarianism, or at least an overweening power of the executive arm of government. This can make tyrants out of those who merely aspire to clear up the mess. This has been demonstrated over and over again whenever democratic bodies around the world have reached the impasse we have reached at the present time.
Our constitution is dedicated to the fundamental premises of peace, order and good government; and I would remind the house that in order to have peace and order you have to have good government. I do not think we have good government, certainly on this issue which is before the house at the present time. You cannot resolve the problem of national unity in this country merely by making a quick change in symbols. This is political primitivism at its worst. As the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), a wise and experienced member of this house, said the other day, it is political ignorance on the part of the government to think that by a sleight-of-hand change in the symbols of this nation they can resolve all the problems of national unity which have been with us ever since confederation. This is to ignore the problems of regionalism, of our vast geography, of the ethnic multiplicity, which was referred to by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Slogan) tonight, and all the political differences. We have five parties in this house. Indeed, we might say we have seven parties, because there is not unanimity within all the party ranks, as I shall point out in a moment.
On top of this we have endeavoured to apply a political system, a parliamentary system which grew up in a unitary state, to a federal state, but with all its peculiar problems. Some have objected to the idea of a plebiscite or a referendum because they say that this has never been used in the mother of parliaments in Great Britain. But the mother of parliaments is a unitary state. There they have a homogeneous population. They have social homogeneity which we do not have in this country, and whenever in Canada a government has been foolish enough to raise an issue on controversial matters as fundamental as this one before parliament
Canadian Flag
they have inevitably resorted to the referendum technique. Again this was the technique of the Liberals back in the early years of the world war. No leader who understands Canada would proceed as the Prime Minister has on this matter.
We have not only advocated a plebiscite as a way out so that we might get on with the business of the country. As has been pointed out in the debate tonight, the leader of the Creditistes was also in favour of a referendum when he spoke at a rally in Montreal on March 5, 1962, as reported in La Presse. Said the leader of the Creditistes:
Six months after taking power the Creditistes will propose to the Canadian people, by way of a referendum, the choice of a distinctive national flag.
But we have gone beyond that now. We are suggesting a parliamentary committee which, if it was the intention of the government to proceed with this matter, is the way we would normally proceed in the house, instead of making a narrow partisan and political issue out of a controversial subject. The door is still open, and all that is necessary is to have a parliamentary committee representing all parties in the house, as recommended by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), get together and try to come to some consensus so that we might resolve the divisions that are all too obvious in this house and across the nation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the only serious intervention on the part of a cabinet minister pointed out all too clearly that this was an explosive and divisive subject. He referred to filibusters and all the rest of it, but his main thesis went beyond this point. He referred to the division which has arisen in the Progressive Conservative party on this matter. He shed crocodile tears over the subject. But what about the division in the Liberal party which has appeared in this chamber? We have heard members supporting the government most critical of the way this subject has been handled. I am not going to repeat what the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) has said, but he referred to decision by a rump convention. He also referred to no consultation with members of the party and no announcement in the campaign literature, and so forth.
There is also a division in the Social Credit party. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) the other night did not take a stand either way. He quoted some letters and said, in effect, that some of his friends are for this and that some of his friends are

Canadian Flag
he said: "I am for my friends". That is the classical example of the answer which is given by politicians when they do not want to make a decision on a controversial matter. There is also division in the New Democratic party. The only party which has demonstrated solidarity forever on this matter is the Credi-tistes, which is a party dedicated to extreme viewpoints and issues in this country. I think that speaks for itself.
While the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has not spoken in this debate, he has had things to say on the subject of a distinctive flag over the years. I want to get around now to discussing some of the speeches which have been made outside the house by ministers of the crown. This matter was before Canada in 1954, when the prime minister of that day, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, a responsible leader who knew the political pulse of the nation, refused to proceed with an issue which had been brought forward by a backbench member of the government at that time.
Then again, even before that, I have a report appearing in MacLean's magazine for February 1, 1954, dealing with the debate of that year and it quotes the now Minister of Transport when he was a member of the establishment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Was he a mandarin?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, he was a mandarin.
The article says:
It didn't come up again until 1944 when another Mackenzie King government proclaimed that the Canadian red ensign should be Canada's battle flag, borne by the troops on D-day and after.
On V.E. day the following year came another occasion when the issue was almost settled. Prime minister King was in San Francisco preparing a broadcast to the Canadian people. He thought he should put in something about the flag.
Jack Pickersgill, then special assistant to the prime minister, asked "Why don't you tell the people this is Canada's national flag, and have done with the argument about it?"
That is in quotations in Maclean's magazine, the article written by Blair Fraser.


An hon. Member:: No answer.


Jay Waldo Monteith: He is trying to think one up.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Fraser goes on:
Alas, he was too blunt. People who have read Mackenzie King's diary report that on that day King recorded the incident with the comment that he wasn't going to have such a delicate matter settled by a brash young secretary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was 20 years ago. I was only 40.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You're still in the foolish
forties.
Instead he contented himself for the moment with authorizing the use of Canada's battle flag on the peace tower and on other public buildings at home as well as abroad.
Four months later came the order in council which did proclaim the red ensign our distinctive national flag.
That was the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), a very prominent member of that government. Back in those days he spoke out about what he thought as a Canadian.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hom
member is something of an historian himself and presumably made an honest living in academic life. I do not think he would want to distort the record. That is not precisely what happened. I made no speech whatsoever about that, but I did have a private conversation with Mr. Mackenzie King in a hotel room in San Fransisco. Mr. Mackenzie King decided it would be a rather good idea to fly the red ensign on the peace tower on V.E. day. I thought that was a good idea too because it seemed to me it was rather more distinctive of Canada than the union jack, which was. flown up to that time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member making a speech, or is he speaking on a point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My understanding is that the hon. minister wanted to ask a question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I should like the minister to make a speech in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was trying to liven up the hon. gentleman's speech.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, he represents the province of Newfoundland in this house and I am sure the premier of that province would like to hear the minister declare himself heartily in favour of the three maple leaf flag.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do so. I declare myself heartily in favour of the three maple leaf flag or any flag with the maple leaf as the distinctive Canadian emblem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister hopes to get around this difficulty by making these typical political dissimulations in respect of the two flag concept. Hon. members opposite have criticized us for discussing this matter in a responsible way and say: Let

us vote on the matter. They think a simple vote is going to resolve the difficulty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I would remind hon. gentlemen who are braying from the back benches that the difficulty, the division and the problems of this nation will only begin when parliament makes a decision in such a hypocritical fashion in the hope of getting around these difficulties and divisions by using the two flag concept.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a very serious question. Does the hon. gentleman really believe in the dictatorship of a minority, or does he think the majority has a right to make decisions?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They are braying again from the other side. Mr. Speaker, I believe in intelligent and honest discussion of these matters rather than the catcalling that has gone on across the way during the course of this debate. I look right in the eye of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) when I make that remark. He was looking with simulated scepticism as I made that statement, Mr. Speaker.
There have been speeches made in respect of this important issue outside the house by ministers of the crown, and I refer to a seminar that was held at the University of Manitoba last March 7, before the government was even thinking about bringing the flag before parliament as a red herring issue. The Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) took part in that debate. One caption in the Alumni Journal reads:
Mr. Sauvo's "good sense", Mr. Pepin's "charm and wit" set the stage for a day of intensive and interesting discussion of the problem-Canada, one nation or two?
Let me quote what Mr. Sauve said on that occasion in my native province, the province of Manitoba. He said:
Let us not concentrate on what divides us...two nations or ten nations. Let us concentrate on one Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are asking this government to do, instead of playing around with the two flags, and all those other things which are designed to divide this nation. If we have two flags we will then have symbolic separation, and that is hypocrisy of the worst kind. We would
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion then have separatism symbolized by the presence of two flags.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and quote the remarks made by the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve). His solution was not a national flag. His theme involved a national economic policy. He said we must forget about these other extraneous matters and concentrate on an economic policy which will bring about the unity of this country. He referred to the particular economic difficulties of the province of Quebec. He then went on to support enthusiastically one measure or economic policy introduced by the former government designed to deal with this particular difficulty. He then said:
So we have to change, and the only way to change Is to have the federal government take the initiative in doing things. One field which we have been slowly working is ARDA,-
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister in that they have been slowly working that field. We introduced ARDA and had resources development going full steam ahead until this government moved in with its propaganda and gimmick techniques, and tried to substitute those things for economic progress.
In the one minute which remains, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He said:
What constitutes a nation is... having accomplished great things in common in the past and having the wish to accomplish more in the future.
That is what the hon. gentleman said on Wednesday, March 7, before the government even thought of the flag issue as a red herring technique. I agree with him heartily.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten thirty?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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


[Stage Direction]
FEDERAL SHARE OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM [Translation]
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon on the orders of the day, I asked a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) with regard to the incentive winter works program set up a few years ago in order to provide assistance, through municipalities, to the great number of unemployed and, by the same token, to their families, during the winter season considered as an off-season for workers.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I wanted to know if the government had paid its share for all works performed under this program during the 1963-1964 season, because several persons, namely the mayors and secretaries of municipalities in my county, have asked me why they have not yet been paid for those works already completed since April last. Those people enquired from Quebec, and Quebec suggested that the delay was due to Ottawa.
Now, I would like to know whether it is true that the federal government delays the payment for those projects, and for what reason.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that the situation is not peculiar to my constituency, for I find in the newspaper La Frontiere of Thursday, August 20, 1964, on page 10, the following article:
No payment made on $300,000 worth of winter works in Rouyn-Noranda.
Settlers and workmen in twelve parishes of the Rouyn-Noranda county, in which winter works were completed in April last, are still waiting for their pay.
In most parishes, the Rouyn banks financed the major part of the works, so that the workers might receive part of their salaries.
Note this word: part of-
*-their salaries. But the backers of those projects expect that the provincial government will give them the money to reimburse the advances granted by the banks.
According to provincial authorities, five parishes were to be paid on June 15, and seven others on June 20. Now, none of those twelve parishes has yet received any money.
The amounts due by the provincial government, under the federal-provincial agreement on winter works to fight seasonal unemployment, would amount to $300,000 in the county of Rouyn-Noranda only.
Meanwhile, the grocers, butchers, and business people who granted credit to the labourers and settlers, now begin to press them for payment.
As you know, the work has been completed since the end of April.
Those labourers hope to be paid before new winter works begin for 1964-65.
We know that the winter works incentive program was set up to assist those who otherwise could not find a job during the off season. Most of those people have families to support and children at school and besides, they are not free from illness any more than others. They needs money to buy the necessities or obtain the services they need but, in most cases, that joint plan did them more harm than good.
During the last week end, an elector of my riding came to see me to explain the situation he was facing, like those who live in the same community and took part in those works, and that is the case of almost every community in northwestern Quebec.

In the municipality of St. Vital de Clermont, in Abitibi West, work started around December 3, 1963 and ended on April 30, 1964. A first payment was made on June 9, 1964 and the balance has not been paid yet.
Like many others, that municipality could not get credit from the caisse populaire or the banks in La Sarre. Consequently, those people had to work all winter without salary, without income, and some of them had enough stamps to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. On the other hand, the unemployment insurance offices in Rouyn or Val d'Or refused to pay them benefits since there was work available in their parishes; others who otherwise could have secured help from the social service were refused for the same reason. Go and cut branches or shovel snow.
Now, it happened, Mr. Speaker, that those day labourer settlers went to their general merchant, their supplier, and he was kind and even charitable enough to sell on credit all through the winter, but when the first part of the works was paid on June 9 last, the merchant took everything and kept everything, and we cannot blame him for it.
However, the poor unemployed have nothing yet, as usual. That will have to be changed because there is a class in the twentieth century civilization, in that affluent century of ours, for whom it is always "nothing".
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Labour and the government to find an arrangement with the province of Quebec and the other provinces so that those who participate in unemployment work will be paid regularly every two weeks. They are like everybody else; they are entitled to the salary they need to support their family.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I will get a satisfactory answer.


Mr. James A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) put a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), and though I have not been able to get the exact wording of it, the question appeared to me to be, has the federal government honoured all of its obligations under the 1963-64 municipal winter works incentive program?
The figures that I have been able to obtain are not broken down province by province. However the federal government has approved projects up to $52 million and payments made to the provinces to date amount

to $17,694,000. Claims on hand and in process of payment amount to $5,529,000. Of course the payments are made by the federal government when it has received claims from the provincial governments. I would assume if the province of Quebec is behind in making these claims to the federal government it is in no different situation from the other provinces.
As can be pointed out, only something more than $17 million has been authorized, and the reason the payments have not been made is simply that the claims have not come in as certified; but all claims received since August 7 have been paid.
The federal government makes its contribution only when the province has certified that
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion these undertakings are capable, under the legislation, of receiving the payments. It is regrettable if these employees have not been paid for the work they have done; but though we regret it, it is not within the competence of the federal government to direct these payments. We only make the payments as the claims are received. The department would be very interested in endeavouring to see to it that payments are made as the work is performed but that, of course, would require some further negotiations. I will certainly bring this to the attention of the department again.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Universities and colleges (including federated and affiliated universities and colleges): Brock University, St. Catharines; Carleton University, Ottawa; University of Guelph, Guelph; Lakehead College of Arts, Science and Technology, Port Arthur; Laurentian University of Sudbury, Sudbury; McMaster University, Hamilton; Ontario College of Art, Toronto; Osgoode Hall law school, Toronto; University of Ottawa, Ottawa; Queen's University, Kingston; Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston; University of Toronto, Toronto; Trent University, Peterborough; The University of Waterloo, Waterloo; Waterloo Lutheran University, Waterloo; The University of Western Ontario, London; University of Windsor, Windsor; York University, Toronto.
Teachers Colleges: Hamilton teachers' college, Hamilton; Lakehead teachers' college, Port Arthur; Lakeshore teachers' college, New Toronto; London teachers' college, London; North Bay teachers' college, North Bay; Ottawa teachers' college, Ottawa; Peterborough teachers' college, Peterborough; Stratford
teachers' college, Stratford; Sudbury teachers' college, Sudbury; Toronto teachers' college, Toronto; University of Ottawa teachers' college, Ottawa; Windsor teachers' college, Windsor.
Technical Institutes: The eastern Ontario institute of technology, Ottawa; The Hamilton institute of technology, Hamilton; The northern Ontario institute of technology, Kirkland Lake; Ryerson polytechnical institute, Toronto; The western Ontario institute of technology, Windsor; Provincial institute of mining, Haileybury.
Institutes of Trade and Ontario Vocational Centres: Ontario vocational centre, London; Ontario vocational centre, Ottawa; Provincial institute of automotive and allied trades, Toronto; Provincial institute of trades, Toronto; Provincial institute of trades and occupations, Toronto.
Other Institutions:	Canadian memorial
chiropractic college, Toronto; College of optometry, Toronto; Ontario forest ranger school, Dorset.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, August 28, 1964