1964-09-02

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-117, respecting Commonwealth day.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish by statute a sovereign's birthday and Commonwealth day to pay our respects to the Queen as head of the commonwealth and to celebrate our Canadian membership in the commonwealth of nations.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the creation of a new holiday but rather the renaming of an old one. The monday preceding May 25 each year is set aside by the nation as a public holiday. It is called Victoria day by some, the Queen's birthday by others, and even Empire day in some parts of the nation. It is a remarkable fact that whatever the forms of government in the various parts of the commonwealth, every nation agreed to retain, in the royal titles, the designation "Head of the Commonwealth". It is together with their common ideals, the real link among the various members of this extraordinary association.
In 1951, when Her Majesty visited Canada as Princess Elizabeth and made a memorable tour of the country from coast to coast, she made the following declaration in her farewell broadcast:
The crown is a thing of real and tangible strength, and one of the most important factors in uniting the people of the commonwealth into one great brotherhood.
These words are just as true now as they were then.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,644-Mr. Douglas:	.
What are the percentage price increases in the costs of goods and services procured by the federal
government for each year since 1956 in the following categories (a) current expenditures (i) wages and salaries of federal government employees (ii) services provided by non-government employees or by private businesses, and (iii) goods purchased by the federal governemnt (b) capital expenditures?
Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: No price indices are kept or can be readily compiled to show the percentage price increases in the cost of goods and services procured by the federal government in the categories (a) (ii), (a) (iii), and (b). It can probably be assumed, in the absence of precise evidence to be the contrary, that the index numbers for prices published by the dominion bureau of statistics would be applicable to goods purchased by the federal government as well as by others; but there are no data readily available to confirm or contradict this assumption.
With respect to category a(i), the following information, subject to two qualifications noted hereafter has been supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics:
Federal government salaries and wages implicit price index 1957 = 100: 1956, 93.2; 1957, 100.0; 1958, 104.3; 1959, 106.8 1960, 114.7; 1961, 120.5; 1962, 124.1; 1963, 132.3.
1.	It is pointed out, with respect to the foregoing index figures, that no wage rate data are available with which to deflate expenditures on salaries and wages. The price series for this category of expenditures are therefore, for the most part, those which are implicit when a comparison is made between total employment and total wages and salaries. Thus, the price series may change, not only because of a change in wage rates but also because of a change in the proportion of, say, professional to clerical staff.
2.	It is also to be noted that the implicit price index figures here shown relate solely to salaries and wages paid by the federal government, and so not necessarily represent price movements for other categories of federal government expenditures.


WAGES OF SEAMEN ON EAST COAST
Mr. Crouse: Do seamen serving on ships operated by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys on the east coast receive equal wages for the same duties carried out by seamen serving with the Department of Transport in the same area and, if not (a)

Questions
what is the disparity between wage scales (b) what is the purpose of such a disparity, and (c) what steps are being taken by the Department of Labour to eliminate any such differential?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: Rates of pay for ships' personnel are determined by treasury board on the recommendation of the appropriate deputy head which in turn is based on the recommendation of the Department of Labour following an examination of rates of pay prevailing in the appropriate area of employment for similar classes of work.
The treasury board has delineated the appropriate areas to be used in determining the prevailing rates for ships' personnel as follows: (a) Where government vessels are confined to one of the following areas of operation, (i) Newfoundland, (ii) lower St. Lawrence-east coast, (iii) upper St. Lawrence-great lakes, wage rates are to be determined on the basis of rates prevailing in companies operating in that one area; (b) where government vessels operate in any of the above areas and are not confined to any one area, wage rates are to be determined on the basis of rates prevailing in those companies that operate in any or all of the areas and that apply the same wage rates and conditions to their employees irrespective of the areas of operation.
The treasury board has made an exception to this policy in the cases of relief personnel and personnel serving on eight vessels of the Department of Transport because the
Years	(a)	(b)	(c)1950-51	$1,250,000	$ -	$301,6251951-52	1,590,000	-	298,6251952-53	1,536,000	-	326,6251953-54	1,903,116	-	396,6251954-55	1,956,262	-	390,0001955-56	2,117,847	-	380,0001956-57	2,501,038	80,000	375,0001957-58	2,740,597	80,000	441,5001958-59	2,990,878	97,305	820,1411959-60	3,707,654	72,000	833,2841960-61	4,069,002	72,000	827,0241961-62	4,830,178	72,000	982,8791962-63	4,901,988	72,000	980,5001963-64	4,975,389	84,500	994,498


NATIONAL DEFENCE AUTOMOBILE LICENCE
[Stage Direction]
27120f
Mr. Millar: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence own an automobile bearing a 1964 Ontario licence plate

numbers involved represented only a small portion of a total number of personnel employed by the department on its fleet of 55 vessels. The exception provides for payment of wage rates arrived at under (b) above rather than (a). It was felt that by placing all employees of the Department of Transport on the same wage rates, the department would have more flexibility in moving crews from one vessel to the other which would allow for better career planning.
The effects of this exception on wage rates applicable to personnel serving on Department of Mines and Technical Surveys vessels operating in the same area as vessels of the Department of Transport are presently under consideration with a view to eliminating any resultant unwarranted differences in rates.


MARITIME COMMISSION SUBSIDIES, ATLANTIC COAST
Mr. Barnefl: 
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes, on strength of No. 9 transport company, Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, Ottawa.
2.	This vehicle was assigned to and under the control of a member of the privy council office, assigned as office manager in the secretariat of the third commonwealth education conference at the time in question.
3.	Two assignments were carried out during the hours of 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m.; (a) the driver, a private of No. 9 transport company, R.C.A.S.C., and an officer of the Department of External Affairs assigned to the secretariat of the third commonwealth education conference proceeded from 140 Wellington street, Ottawa to the queen's printer in Hull and returned to the same address; (b) the driver, accompanied by a messenger, proceeded to a local business establishment to obtain supplies for the commonwealth education conference.
4.	Not applicable.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What was the monthly rate at which family allowances were paid to children eight years of age and of 14 years of age as of July 1, 1934, July 1, 1944, July 1, 1954, July 1, 1964?
2.	Has the government given consideration to the desirability of increasing family allowances in order to keep them in line with the increase in the cost of living as compared with 1944?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. On July 1, 1934 and 1944 the family allowances program was not in existence. On July 1, 1954 and 1964 the rates were the same: 8 years of age, $6; 14 years of age, $8.
2. The government is continuously studying ways and means of improving Canada's social security programs. Any changes decided upon will be announced by the government at the appropriate time.


POSTAL FACILITIES, RED ROCK, ONT.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	When was the post office facility at Red Rock, Ontario, obtained?
2.	In summary, what space does it provide in terms of boxes and working room?
3.	Is the facility close to the standard or average for a community of this size?
4.	Has any consideration been given to erecting a new post office and, if not, for what reasons?
Questions


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: 1. September 25, 1950.
2.	700 square feet.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, but as the existing space is satisfactory for the present, it is not proposed to recommend the provision of improved accommodation at this time.


WATER FLOW, WELLAND CANAL
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,768
Mr. Ryan:: 1.	Since inception of the seaway, what has been the annual seasonal average in cubic feet per second of the flow through the Welland canal?
2.	What is the estimated increase of such flow that will be caused by the planned twinning of locks on the Welland canal?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	Since the inception of the seaway, the annual seasonal average of the flow through the Welland canal has been 6,800 cubic feet per second.
2.	The estimated increase of such flow that will be caused by the planned twinning of locks on the Welland canal is 1,000 to 1,200 cubic feet per second.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	How many employees have been relieved of their employment at the Point Edward naval base since the announcement by the Minister of National Defence on December 5, 1963?
2.	How many of these employees have been re-employed through the offices of the national employment service?
3.	How many are still without employment?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. 229. Of this number 55 left voluntarily to accept other employment and 48 were transferred to other government departments.
2.	28 and an additional 6 are training in local trade schools.
3.	The number of personnel without employment is not known as not all registered with the national employment service. However, 73 are in receipt of unemployment benefits.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION CONTRACTS TO NORTH SYDNEY MARINE RAILWAY CO.

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
What was the dollar value of contracts awarded to the North Sydney Marine Railway Company

Questions
Limited by the Department ol Defence Production for each of the fiscal years 1954 to the present time, for repairs, refits and conversions?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: The value of contracts awarded to North Sydney Marine Railway Company Limited by the Department of Defence Production for the years in question is:
Fiscal Year	Amount
1954-55	$ 26,874
1955-56	94,969
1956-57	Nil
1957-58	218,600
1958-59	142,744
1959-60	158,498
1960-6)	137,988
1961-62	239,398
1962-63	139,420
1963-64	155,603
1964-65	38,839*
Total	$1,352,933
* Information on the value of contracts placed in 1964/65 is available only to the end of July.



SPRINGHILL, N.S.-PENITENTIARY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the government to have construction initiated on the young offenders' institution at Springhill, N.S., in October, or will construction be delayed until the spring of 1965?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Tenders for this project have been advertised and are due October 7, 1964. Subject to acceptable offers being received construction should start this fall.



WHARF EXTENSION, PORT PHILLIP, N.S.

Mr. Coates: 1. Is it the intention of the government to extend wharfage facilities at Port Phillip, Cumberland co., N.S., in the fiscal year 1965-66?
2. What would be the estimated cost of wharf extensions for Port Phillip?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Matter is under consideration.
2. Between $20,000 and $25,000.
^CANADIAN FLAG



SUPPORT FOR RED ENSIGN OR PLEBISCITE

Mr. Coates: What is the total number of names attached to telegrams, letters, petitions, etc., in support of the retention of the Canadian red ensign as Canada's national flag or requesting that a national plebiscite be carried out to determine whether any change should be made in our present flag?


Mr. J. B. Siewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: The Department of the Secretary of State has received 134,196 names attached to telegrams, letter, petitions, etc., in support of the retention of the Canadian red ensign; 25,096 names requesting that a national plebiscite be carried out to determine whether any change should be made in our present flag.



COMMEMORATIVE STAMP ON DISCOVERY OF SALT

Mr. Irvine: Has the Postmaster General recently received representations or submissions that a new stamp be struck to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the discovery of salt in Canada in the year 1866, inasmuch as one recently was struck to commemorate the discovery of oil in Canada and, if so, what is the result of his deliberations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, and the suggestion will be considered when the 1966 program is under study.



DEATH RATE FROM LEUKEMIA

Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): What has been the death rate, per thousand, from leukemia in each province in each of the last ten years?


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Death rates from leukemia and aleukemia, Canada and provinces, 1954-1963 (per 100,000 population)
Year	Canada	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Yukon N.W.T.	1954	5.0	2.0	5.0	2.8	3.5	3.9	5.6	6.1	6.3	6.0	7.0	-	-1955	5.4	5.9	8.0	6.1	4.4	4.4	5.2	4.8	7.2	5.8	7.5	-	5.61956	5.2	4.1	11.1	4.6	5.0	4.4	5.7	5.2	6.6	4.8	5.6	-	-1957	5.4	3.5	8.1	6.4	4.6	4.6	5.5	5.0	6.7	6.1	6.3	-	-1958	5.6	3.2	6.0	6.2	6.3	4.3	6.0	7.0	5.6	5.6	7.6	-	5.01959	5.7	3.6	5.9	8.1	3.3	4.9	5.8	6.5	5.8	7.1	7.2	-	4.81960	5.7	3.8	7.8	6.6	5.3	4.7	6.1	6.7	6.7	5.1	7.1	-	9.11961	5.7	2.0	6.7	5.7	5.9	4.6	6.3	5.9	7.8	5.6	7.0	-	-1962	6.1	5.7	3.8	4.6	5.8	5.3	6.0	6.2	8.3	7.5	7.2	-	4.21963	6.1	5.4	9.3	4.8	5.0	5.2	6.5	7.3	9.1	6.0	6.8	6.7	-



CANADIAN LIFE EXPECTANCY

Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): What was the life expectancy of Canadian males and females in 1954, 1959 and 1964?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Life expectancy at birth, by sex, Canada, 1951, 1956 and 1961*
1951	1956	1961Males	66.3	67.6	68.4Females	70.8	72.9	74.2
*Life tables available for census years only.



LIFE EXPECTANCY

Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): What proportions of the Canadian population can be expected to survive to (a) age 60 (b) age 65 (c) age 70 (d) age 75 (e) age 80?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Survivors of a cohort of 100,000 persons at specific ages, by sex, Canada, 1961*: age 60, males, 77,546; females, 86,387; age 65, males, 68,774; females, 80,916; age 70, males, 57,517; females, 72,746; age 75, males, 43,791; females, 61,052; age 80, males, 28,936; females, 45,161. *Life tables available for census years only.



* POSTAGE STAMP COMMEMORATING BATTLE OF PLAINS OF ABRAHAM

Mr. Hahn: 1.	Was a postage stamp issued to commemorate the bicentenary of the battle of the plains of Abraham and, if so, what was the principal pictorial feature on that stamp?
2.	Who was the head of the government which authorized that particular stamp?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this question is in two parts. The answer is: 1. Yes, a postage stamp was issued on September 10, 1959 to mark the bicentenary of the battle of the plains of Abraham. The principal pictorial feature on that stamp is three green maple leaves, joined on a single stem, on a red background.
2. The head of the government which authorized that particular stamp was Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker.
Perhaps I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. gentleman referred to this stamp yesterday as having been issued while his government was in office, and I might say he also referred to some remarks I had made about the three maple leaves stamp issued earlier this year.
Motions jor Papers


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, is this a proper exercise of the minister's right? I raise a question of order. If the hon. gentleman wants to take part in the debate we will be glad to hear him, but up to the present time he has been one of that great gathering over there who are gagged.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I was answering the question, and I said the right hon. gentleman had also made reference to this matter. I would also say-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is very irregular. This is using a starred question for the purpose of getting in some gratuitous suggestions and answers which the minister has not got backbone enough to do in the course of the debate.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Monleilh:: He answered the question, Mr. Speaker.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: -to complete my answer, the press release issued by the government of that time stated that the three maple leaves are similar to those on the coats of arms of several provinces and represent the two original groups as well as people of the many other nations who joined in the task of building our country.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, motions 158 and 159 are acceptable to the government. I ask that motion No. 134 be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that motions 158 and 159 should be carried?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 158-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between anyone in Atlin, B.C. and the office of the superintendent of Indian affairs at Whitehorse, Y.T. since January 1, 1962 dealing with any aspect of Indians affairs.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 159-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government and any agency or department thereof and any other
7574	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry person, group or organization since January 1, 1963, relating to the need for the installation of electrical facilities at the wharf or floats at Bella Coola, B.C., and also to the levying of fees under the government wharves regulations.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he was interviewed recently by Mr. Robert Reguly regarding the S.I.U. Has he read the article in the Toronto Star of yesterday, and is he the cabinet minister referred to in the report who stated that Hal Banks was in New York?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I did have a meeting with Mr. Reguly and I did discuss, I think, rumours as to the whereabouts of Mr. Banks. I repeated to him the statement which I think I gave to the House of Commons, that there had been rumours that Mr. Banks was in the United States, possibly in New York. This is a rumour, of course, to which I referred recently and in which connection I indicated that there was no firm knowledge so far as I was concerned; it had been merely a rumour.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamillon (Qu'Appelle):: About a month ago I directed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in which I requested him to ask the high commissioner for India about the need for food in that country. Today I should like to address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the urgent appeal put forward by our sister commonwealth nation, India, requesting food and asking Washington and London to divert grain ships to that country, will the Acting Prime Minister take some steps to let the Indian government know our shipping is free on the St. Lawrence at the present time and we do have grain available for hungry people?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to bring this matter, which has been raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, before my colleagues tomorrow when the Prime Minister will be back. I am sure that appropriate action will be taken.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the reorganization of his department which will involve further layoffs, and in view of the fact that severance pay is provided for military personnel, is the government giving any consideration to some type of severance pay or compensation for civilian employees whose services are to be dispensed with as a result of the reorganization?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think that question has been asked once or twice before. Perhaps I could look up the reply in Hansard and make it available to my hon. friend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I believe the question has been asked, but I do not think it has been answered. I was wondering if the minister would undertake to give some thought to this problem and give the house a definite reply as to whether his department is prepared to give such severance pay to civilian employees.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I would be very happy to give it some additional thought. As I have pointed out to the house before, this is a large problem and would not apply to the Department of National Defence alone. Any solution which was arrived at in respect of our department would have to apply to all other departments of government, and for that reason there are restrictions which we cannot easily overcome.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if he knows of any other department which, according to its own press release, intends to cut its headquarters staff in Ottawa by half?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, offhand I could not say that I do, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.

Would he care to comment on the statement made yesterday by Mr. Lesage to protest against the unilingual re-enactment of the Charlottetown talks, organized by the centennial commission?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would point out that the government itself had nothing to do with the contents of that program. However, I am told that those who did organize it merely meant to respect the historical truth and that not a single word of French was spoken in Charlottetown, at the 1864 conference.
Be that as it may, I can assure my hon. friend that the program for the confederation centennial celebrations, in 1967, will fully respect Canada's bilingual character.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State.
Is he aware of the corrective statement made by Senator Connolly, government leader in the upper chamber, with regard to Mr. Lesage's statement, in support of the latter's protest?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am not aware of the statement made by the senator concerned.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Must one conclude then that the remarks made by the Quebec premier were unfounded?



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, based on my lifelong appreciation of the value of water. My question is also based upon a press report, that caused me some concern, of a recent announcement by Mr. Ralph M. Parsons of Los Angeles with respect to plans for the diversion of Canadian rivers in the Arctic watershed to Mexico and the great lakes, and upon another recent press report of a statement by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano to the Vancouver board of trade in which he said that "he could foresee the time when water will become one of the most important items of trade between Canada and the United States."
Can the minister assure the house that the present and future water requirements
Inquiries of the Ministry of the Canadian people will be protected before the government undertakes to sell any more water to the United States?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question, because it enabled me to prepare a few notes. I want to compliment him again, as I have in the past, for his continuing interest in this subject, and I want to say that in my view he is dealing with probably the greatest issue that will confront Canada during the next several decades.
I have been stating recently that water is at least our second greatest asset, next to soil; and as the years go by may even exceed the value of our soil. It is true that we are having indications of water shortage in parts of the United States. As a matter of fact in some places the problem appears to be reaching critical levels; and dependant entirely on the increase in population and the expansion of industry which might depend upon the multi-use of water, it is possible that the so-called Parsons plan will in the years ahead appear as something other than the cloudy dream it might be today.
That being the case, it is imperative that in Canada we give an increasing amount of attention to water, and I want to assure the house that one of the first measures I took when I became minister of this department was to ask for an increase in the personnel and expenditures of the water resources branch. In addition, we have encouraged the three prairie provinces which are now meeting together to decide on a plan for the diversion of northern rivers into the Saskatchewan system. This was initiated by the former premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Lloyd, on September 20 of last year.


Mr. Graffley:: This is a Rotary club speech.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be something wrong with the hon. member. Perhaps someone can help him.


William Heward Grafftey: You are abusing the rules.


Arthur Laing: At the present time it is under the chairmanship of Hon. Mr. Strom, who is minister of agriculture for Alberta. In addition, we have joined with the province of Manitoba in studies of the Nelson river.
I am quite certain that in the years ahead this government, and indeed any government dealing with this matter, will look upon our water resources as a prime element in negotiation with our United States friends; that

Inquiries of the Ministry we will regard it as an important element of our national greatness and make sure it will never become a badge of bondage.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to ask the minister whether he has any progress to report with regard to the long range transmission of hydro power; because without this there can be no such thing as selling off our water resources. We must have regard to our domestic needs.


Arthur Laing: I would hope we are dealing here with the multiple use of our waters and not with power alone. I hope in a few days we shall be announcing a contract dealing with this matter which the hon. member has raised, namely long range transmission of power.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Is the minister also giving active consideration to the Kierans plan for the diversion to the great lakes of waters flowing north into Hudson bay?


Arthur Laing: We have on the order paper at the present time a motion to refer the matter of the level of the great lakes to the committee on mines, forests and waters. I hope action will soon be taken in this respect, and it may be expected that the subject to which the hon. member referred will be dealt with by that committee. The committee might well wish to call Mr. Kierans as a witness.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As a final supplementary on this matter, I should like to know, for the information of the house, whether the minister is still praying for rain.


Arthur Laing: Yes, and I hope the hon. gentleman is, too.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: In view of the minister's interest in water and the discussions he has held recently with the Alberta government, can he say whether there has been any indication from the government of Alberta that they are now prepared to proceed with the Red Deer river diversion scheme?


Arthur Laing: I was informed by Mr. Strom less than a week ago that discussions with the other two provinces concerned were going magnificently, to use his expression.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On that particular
project, or on water use generally?


Arthur Laing: There was no special reference to that particular project.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the minister take this house into his confidence and tell us what consideration he and his colleagues are giving at the present time to a new policy with respect to Chinese immigrants? I ask this question because of news reports on radio and television within the last 24 hours that the government is considering a new policy. If this report is not spiked or denied now I am afraid it will adversely affect the present policy, which has been gathering momentum.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for giving me this opportunity to state that the news published in the last few days about a new policy could only refer to the two statements I made previously about Chinese immigration. Therefore, there is no question of a new government policy. The whole policy about Chinese immigration was announced when my estimates were discussed and in the correction I made in the house on August 19.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Does the minister say, then, that no consideration is being given to a general amnesty program? This was the news report. I ask him to confirm or deny it, because I am afraid the Chinese people will be affected until this is done.


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker. It is out of the question to consider a new amnesty. The statements made in the house are the only ones that count.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the report from Vancouver that the Chinese amnesty does not cover those who have entered Canada by means of forged passports, would the minister consider issuing a statement clarifying the situation with respect to eligibility for amnesty?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to clarify any point which may not have been cleared before.



MOVEMENT OF NEW CANADIANS TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Complon-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We are noticing, with regret, that many Canadians and new Canadians from Quebec are moving to the United States. Could the minister tell the house whether anything is being done to find out the reasons behind this mass moving of Canadian citizens to the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a question for the order paper.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: I should like to reply briefly to a question raised in the house yesterday by the hon. member for Regina City concerning the port of Regway, Saskatchewan.
Traffic figures for Regway during the current summer months have been carefully analysed, and the results of this analysis indicate that the volume of traffic between 12 midnight and 8 a.m. barely justifies the 12 midnight to 8 a.m. shift during the summertime. I might point out that the average has only been four cars for that shift during this summer, 1964. Since traffic always declines greatly after Labour day week end, the volume which can be forecast for this shift after September 14 does not support its retention. Twenty four hour service will, however, be provided between May 15 and September 14 each year. I might point out that this is the first summer that such service has been provided at Regway. The situation at Regway will continue to be kept under close observation to ensure that appropriate action is taken as warranted.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, a question was raised
Inquiries of the Ministry by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac concerning the deductibility as charitable donations of contributions to an organization known as Underdog. This organization was recognized for purposes of the Income Tax Act as a charitable organization by the previous government on April 15, 1962. Subsequent to recent events I have asked officials of my department to contact officers of this organization to determine whether a continuation of this privilege is warranted.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. It has to do with Mr. Royce Frith, reputedly a member of the inner strategy board of the Liberal party, who secured a radio broadcasting licence in Windsor and has now made application to the board of broadcast governors for permission to sell after only four months of operation.
Would the minister ascertain from the B.B.G. whether the B.B.G. has received letters opposing the transfer of this station; the reasons for the curious change of circumstances which now lead Mr. Frith, having secured the licence, to endeavour to rid himself of it; and whether there is any foundation for the statements made in the Globe and Mail by Mr. Dennis Braithwaite that Mr. Frith was able to make a secret application and secure his licence on the basis of such an application?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly try to secure from the B.B.G. the information which the right hon. gentleman is seeking. Meanwhile I should like to remind him that the B.B.G. granted the application of Mr. Frith at their meeting on March 26, 1963 and the public announcement was dated April 11, 1963.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport, which relates to the question put to the Secretary of State by the Leader of the Opposition. An answer to my question might clarify the other answer given. I should like to ask the minister whether the actual licence for CKWW, Mr. HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Frith's station, was issued by the Department of Transport after the change of government in 1963, and if so, did the minister at that time have a report before him in respect of the financing of Mr. Frith by Mr. Stirling?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. gentleman knows quite well, the licence was of course issued after the change of government pursuant to a recommendation made by the board of broadcast governors, as the Secretary of State has already told the house, before the change of government. Precisely what the minister of transport of that day may have done to satisfy himself that he should send the recommendation of the board of broadcast governors to the cabinet for approval, I cannot say. This is one of those things that is done by the minister on his responsibility. There is no question that on his responsibility he did send it to the cabinet, and on their responsibility it was approved.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question just to clarify that answer. Is it ever the practice not to approve the issuance of such licences if they have been recommended by the B.B.G.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe I would be right in saying that there has only been one case; none under the previous government and one under the present government. I therefore doubt if one could call it a practice.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Perhaps I should ask the question of the present chairman of the treasury board, who then was the minister. Did that minister have before him a thorough review of the financing of CKWW?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember the particular application, but I would not expect I would have, because that would be a matter for the board of broadcast governors.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding a matter of immediate concern to the city of Vancouver. In view of the fact that Vancouver is the third largest city in Canada but has only one approach to the international airport, via a bridge which has been breaking down for certain reasons, and as


recently as the last two days, thereby affecting not only flights to and from the airport but creating a grave danger to those using the bridge in the event of accident, is the Minister of Transport now giving immediate consideration, in collaboration with the Minister of Public Works and the provincial government, to providing an alternative route between Vancouver and the international airport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe that just at the time I was last in Vancouver a joint announcement was made by the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia that an engineering study, which is being paid for jointly by the two governments, is being made of this proposal. In saying this I think I should repeat what was said at the time; that it is not a normal part of the functions of the government of Canada to provide access from great cities to their airports. That is regarded as a municipal function, and where it transcends municipal boundaries a provincial function, since it is the provision of roads or roads and bridges. However, it was our opinion that the problem the hon. gentleman referred to is of sufficient importance that we should join in this engineering study.
Moreover, I am sure that the hon. gentleman's friends would wish to address to the government of his province, which I understand claims to be debt free, urgent representations on the same subject.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry the minister made that statement. I have never known that the premier of British Columbia was considered a friend of mine, because I was the first opposition leader to face him. However, I would ask the minister whether he and the government would be prepared to recommend, in view of the situation, a federal contribution toward a new access route to the international airport, which is under the jurisdiction of the minister, be it a bridge or a tunnel. Would the minister mind answering that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I apologize both to the hon. member and to the government of British Columbia. I think the hon. gentleman did not hear what I said. I suggested that perhaps his friends would wish to make representations to the government of British Columbia, and I was using the word "friends" in the usual parliamentary sense of those people in his own party which I

believe is the official opposition in that province.
The question as to whether or not there should be a federal contribution to the road to the airport in Vancouver, I think would have to be considered in the light of similar situations in Toronto, in Montreal and in Ottawa, where the situation is not very satisfactory, as well as in a great many other places. There does come a point where one has to consider whether and to what extent the federal government should be spending money collected from the taxpayers all over Canada to perform functions which normally fall, under our constitution, within other jurisdictions.


Harold Edward Winch: A further supplementary question. In view of the minister's statement is he prepared to give the same consideration to a federal grant to British Columbia as he asked for and got for the maritimes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should think that where the circumstances are equal there should always be equal treatment.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour?
Would the minister consider the possibility of reaching an agreement with the state of Quebec in order that unemployed persons participating this year in the winter works program may be paid periodically instead of six months after the jobs are completed, as was the case these last few years?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES TORONTO    CANADA COUNCIL GRANT TO CREST THEATRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Is the minister now in a position to tell the house why the Canada Council has revoked the grant to the Crest theatre in Toronto, thereby wrecking one of Canada's principal and outstanding cultural projects?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. gentleman that the Canada Council is not an agency of the crown and is therefore not responsible to parliament. The position I am taking at present was confirmed by the former prime minister of Canada, the present Leader of the Opposition, when he refused to answer a similar question in the house in the fall of 1957.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. I believe only two days ago the Secretary of State, in answer to a question by another hon. member, said he would answer this question or he would make inquiries of the Canada Council, implying that he would give an answer when he had done so. I do not see why this question cannot be answered. The Secretary of State certainly replies to this house, on behalf of the Canada Council, and I think he should provide this house with an answer.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have reexamined the relationship that exists between parliament, the government and the Canada Council, and have come to the same conclusion as the former prime minister, that as it is very clearly stated in the act, the Canada Council is not an agency of the crown and therefore not responsible to parliament.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a further supplementary question. Is there any way, then, in which replies to questions concerning the disposition of funds by this entity can be obtained?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will always be very pleased to transmit the grievances or questions of hon. members to the Canada Council. As far as the members who want to direct questions to the Canada Council are concerned, they have an opportunity each year to do so when the Canada Council appears before the public accounts committee.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. In view of the apparent shortage of funds available to the Canada Council to carry on their very important duties in preparing for the centennial celebrations in various performing arts centres, is the government giving any consideration to a special grant to enable the council to carry out this responsibility?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. gentleman that the Canada Council is not responsible for preparations in respect of the centennial celebrations. The centennial commission is re-
7580	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry sponsible and is preparing very good projects indeed to celebrate that great event.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have another question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I thank the hon. gentlemen for obtaining order for me. Mr. Speaker, in view of the last response of the Secretary of State may I ask whether he has read the annual report of the Canada Council for 1963-64, and particularly page 12 wherein they state they feel it their responsibility to obtain competent actors and directors for the centennial celebrations, and complain about the shortage of funds? They have accepted this responsibility in their latest report to the minister himself.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the government, and I am sure also the centennial commission, will welcome the collaboration we will receive from the Canada Council in this respect.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council, in his capacity as chairman of the treasury board, whether special notices have been sent to most departments informing them that the increases in estimates originally planned or expected will not now be allowed, or will not come about; and is this a step preparatory to a tax reduction?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman has forgotten all the knowledge he is assumed to have collected when he was an active privy councillor; because it is quite inappropriate for him to attempt to anticipate the budget address which presumably will come next spring.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, is it inappropriate for me to request the minister to indicate, by simply saying yes or no to my question, whether special notices have been sent to most departments suggesting that the various increases in the department estimates would not now be allowed?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of cabinet business. It is quite a wrong statement in any event.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. Has the civil service commission the right to ignore the present government's established policy concerning bilingualism in the civil service? I am referring especially to the poster dealing with competition No. 64875 for the position of legal officer (international law) which states that knowledge of English will be compulsory and that knowledge of French, while an asset, will not be necessary, even though French is one of the greatest international languages in the world.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will reply to the hon. member's question tomorrow.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEW ZEALAND OMBUDSMAN AND HIGH COMMISSIONER

Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may call to your attention and that of the house the fact that we have just been joined in the Speaker's gallery by two distinguished visitors. I refer to Sir Guy Powles, the New Zealand parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman, who is accompanied by the New Zealand high commissioner, Mr. John Reid.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, September 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker-


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether during the 19 days of this debate, the clerks have kept a record of all speakers and know whether they have spoken on the motion, the amendment or the subamendment, so we will know that a member is in order?


Mr. Speaker:: I am glad the hon. member raised that question. I have checked the records. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is in order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to welcome back to the house the hon. member for Vancouver East and acknowledge his interest in this debate, to which he has apparently given no attention up to the present.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons assembled on February 18 and I have missed only nine days since that date. I have been here at all other times.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Confession is good for the soul. I have missed two days this session. I hope the hon. member will participate in the debate, because I recall him saying that all he would have to do to be re-elected in the next election would be to march up and down carrying the red ensign in his hand. That is the support he has in his constituency, and he should so indicate to the house and declare himself by word of mouth and also by his vote.
When I was speaking last week I said it was my intention to discuss the plebiscite and to indicate why people should not give their support to the personal choice of the Prime Minister. I said I would give reasons why they should give their choice, if a plebiscite is held, to the Canadian red ensign. I had time to complete only about a third of what I wanted to say, and I welcome this opportunity to deliver the remainder of the speech I had prepared for that occasion.
This debate, which has gone on for a reasonable length of time, is serving a great deal of good so far as the country is concerned. No matter what the outcome is, the people of Canada will have a better knowledge of our history, our traditions and the meaning of national symbols than they ever had before, because our educational system has never had to deal with this particular problem. I have not been able to find in any of our Canadian history books any reference to Canada's flag, and in the 17 years I was engaged in the educational profession 20220-479
Canadian Flag
I never had occasion to draw attention to Canada's national flag because the issue never arose. In fact, throughout my lifetime the issue did not arise until I entered the federal political field. It was only then I became aware that there was a movement on foot in this country to take away the Canadian red ensign.
At that time, several years ago now, I thought it was not a really serious movement; but now in the year 1964 we discover that it is a serious movement, and people are attempting to take away from us something that we, as did our forefathers before us, have treasured all our lives.
In a series of articles in the Toronto Star this debate has been labelled "the great flag farce". It is not a farce at all. It is a serious matter. Thanks to the freedom enjoyed in this country, people who have been here one day or six weeks or a dozen years may comment upon our parliamentary institutions, tell us how they should be operated and give us advice as to what we are to do. They are free to comment on our history and our traditions in so far as they understand them; but those of us whose ancestral roots in this country go back 150 years, as mine do, and those whose ancestors were here 200 years ago or 400 years ago also have something to say with regard to our history and our traditions. Our opinion is entitled to be considered by those who are perhaps viewing our country for the first time.
That is why I say this debate is not a farce. It is a serious matter, and we on this side of the house in the Conservative party have been taking it seriously. The Prime Minister is quoted in the Star of August 31 as saying "Every good flag has to be born in a battle and this one is no exception". I will deal with that later. This is not a battle in the sense that any blood is going to be shed, except for cow's blood which comes down from the gallery sometimes, but it is a contest between opposing forces in our country; and thanks to our parliamentary system and freedom of speech we can express these differing points of view.
I noted in the remarks of the Minister of Transport yesterday that he said his party favoured a distinctive flag, and claimed that this was widely disseminated across the country during election campaigns. Not in Winnipeg; I can tell him that. I would have had no trouble at all in 1962 and 1963 in the city of Winnipeg had I been told by the Liberals that they were going to take away the Canadian red ensign or remove the jack from the

Canadian Flag
flag. They did not tell us that. They concealed that from the people. They will not be able to conceal it in the next election.
There has been talk about a distinctive flag, and I will just gloss over this very quickly because other people have mentioned it. You have only to go to the front of the west block and view the flags of the commonwealth displayed there in honour of the commonwealth educational conference to see that Canada's flag is distinctive and cannot be mistaken for any other flag. The same is true of the NATO nations. I have seen all the flags of the NATO nations. We have had them flying here on parliament hill. There is no possibility of mistaking Canada's flag for that of any other nation in that group; and the same is true of the United Nations.
I commend the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for a display they have in the airport terminal at Toronto, opposite the newsstand. They have on display there 105 flags of the nations of the world, and I challenge anybody to prove that Canada's flag is not distinctive. It stands out there as clearly as half a dozen other distinctive flags. You do not have to look twice to see whether it is Canada's flag. I commend the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for their public interest in putting these examples of flags on display for the benefit of the people.
I intend to speak about the long history of our flag. The evidence is quickly assembled. On page 593 of Hansard for October 1, 1945 you will find a reply by Mr. Ilsley to a question on the red ensign, and the second part of the answer reads as follows:
The red ensign flew from the tower of the houses of parliament from the days of confederation until 1904.
You will find in Hansard for November 8, 1945, at page 1934 a statement by Hon. Ian Mackenzie, a minister of the crown, which reads as follows:
Prior to 1867, the flag in general use was the union jack, which was flown in all the colonies. Upon the establishment of confederation, however, it was felt desirable to have a symbol of the new country that had been created, and this was achieved through the use of a flag made up of the British red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms in the fly, a flag which became known as the Canadian red ensign. The ensign was flown from all public buildings after 1867, and achieved quite general use. In a governor general's dispatch of December, 1891, on the question of the issuance of a formal warrant for the use of a flag on Canadian merchant vessels, Lord Stanley wrote:-
These are his words:
Though no actual order has ever been issued the dominion government has encouraged by pre-

cept and example the use on all public buildings throughout the provinces of the red ensign with the Canadian badge in the "fly". I submit that the flag is one which has come to be considered as the recognized flag of the dominion both ashore and afloat, and on sentimental grounds I think there is much to be said for its retention.
We had further evidence given during the course of the debate. We have had statements and quotations from Mr. Mackenzie King, from Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent. The hon. member for Calgary North drew our attention to an election poster used by Sir John A. Macdonald in 1891, showing the Canadian red ensign. The hon. member for Victoria COnt.), drew our attention to the Fenian raid medal of 1866 showing the Canadian red ensign. It has been the accepted flag for Canada since confederation. It is disturbing to find people saying now that we have no distinctive Canadian flag. We have one, and we have had one for almost 100 years.
Now, I suggest that we should give serious consideration to the union jack in that Canadian red ensign in relation to the exploration and settlement of Canada and the significance of that flag to Canada. Sometimes it is overlooked that Canada is not just the two central provinces which are so prominent in the news. It is overlooked that Cabot came to Newfoundland in 1497; that in 1583 that island was annexed by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, and that for a period of from 381 to 467 years -you could say for over 400 years-Newfoundland has known nothing but the union jack.
With regard to Nova Scotia, it is overlooked that for 250 years since it was annexed in 1713, that province has known the union jack. Little mention is made of British Columbia. British Columbia had no connection with the other parts of Canada. It was explored and settled by people from the British isles. In 1778 Captain Cook was there, and in 1792 Captain Vancouver. In 1793 Alexander Mackenzie crossed into British Columbia by land. For almost 200 years, therefore, British Columbia has known no flag except the union jack or the Canadian red ensign.
Now, even more important is Manitoba and the prairie country of the west. In 1610 Henry Hudson sailed into Hudson bay and touched the shores of what is now the province of Manitoba. At that time there were only 2,000 people living in Quebec by the shores of the St. Lawrence. In 1612 Captain James Button was there with two ships, the Resolution and the Discovery, and remained there during the winter of 1612-13. In the next few years Captains Gibbons, Bylot and

Baffin sailed into Hudson bay and again touched those shores. James Munk in 1619, wintered at the mouth of the Churchill river. The flag of the country he represented was flown at that time. In 1631 Luke Foxe and in 1632 Thomas James wintered on the shore of James bay. In 1668 the Nonsuch carried back a cargo of furs with such results that the Hudson's Bay Company was formed in 1670 and sent two ships into that territory. On September 1,	1670, Governor Bayley
formally took possession of that territory and the adjoining area for a company under the protection of Great Britain, and the union jack was flown there. The province of Manitoba, therefore, can claim a far longer association with the union jack than any other province of Canada with the sole exception of Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a factual question. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that the union jack was only established in its present form in the year 1801, after union with Ireland?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I am quite aware of that. After all, like the hon. member, my ancestors came from England. Originally they were reputed to be a Norman family but intermingled with Anglo-Saxons, and therefore enjoy some of the stolid characteristics of the Anglo-Saxons to which my hon. friend referred yesterday.


Mr. Nowlan:: Any Irish in the background?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was an ameliorating influence of 200 years in Ireland and then my ancestors came out to Ontario to settle in the Huron tract when it was opened. I quite understand, therefore, that it was the union flag, the cross of St. George and St. Andrew, during the period of which I was speaking, and it was subsequently that the cross of St. Patrick was added. Permit me to call it the union flag or the union jack because I mean both; I mean the flag which represented those countries from which our ancestors came.
Still dealing with Manitoba and the west, I may say that in 1690 and 1691 Kelsey was at The Pas and he was the first white man to venture into the parklands and the grasslands of these areas. It was only for a 15-year period from 1697 to 1713 that the French controlled Hudson bay. By the treaty of Utrecht in 1713 it came back under British control, so for 350 years Manitoba and the west have known the union jack or the Cana-20220-4791
Canadian Flag
dian red ensign. This illustrates the importance of that flag to other parts of Canada.
Although I was born in one of the central provinces, I had the great fortune to move out west at a very early age before too much damage had resulted. I suggest there is more to the history of Canada than just the history of the two central provinces. When the Prime Minister says that every good flag has to be born in battle, I was reminded how true that was with regard to most national flags. Most national flags have had their origin in conflict and in bloodshed. It is for this reason most national flags are so highly treasured and respected.
I think one of the great omissions in our country is the way in which the military history of Canada is treated. We play it down all the time. In a very recent history of this country of over 500 pages there are six paragraphs devoted to the first and second world wars. These six paragraphs are devoted to two wars which changed the whole nature of our civilization, changed our lives and are affecting them today.
The military history of our country has been neglected, yet it is in this military history that you find the use of a flag. We do not know, as Canadians, enough about the threat to our country in 1776. We think it is not right to talk about what the United States tried to do to Canada because we may offend them, just as 100 years ago the fathers of confederation would have chosen the name "Kingdom of Canada" for this country but a weak-kneed colonial minister in England thought the Americans would be offended, so it was changed to the less offensive term "dominion."
There is nothing wrong in recalling our history of 1776 and the resistance of our people to the invaders from the south. Our existence is based largely on the fact that they were defeated, and they were defeated by the action of English and French standing together behind the bastions of Quebec. Is it wrong for us to recount the story of the conflict of 1812 and 1814? I do not hear much about it now. I heard about it when I was a schoolboy many years ago, but no one hears much about it now. It is something we should consider, because once again English, French and Indians standing together defended this country from a very serious invasion, and back of them stood the power of Great Britain.
We do not hear much about the Fenian raids in the 1860's; yet the fathers of confederation, when they were making their

Canadian Flag
plans in 1866 to complete their organization for confederation, had those plans seriously delayed and upset because of the threat of a Fenian invasion from the United States, and that Fenian invasion or threat did not receive the restraint from the government of the United States that it should have. We play all these things down.
We do not talk much about the uprising in the northwest in 1885. We hear very little about South Africa. There was no national recognition here in Ottawa with regard to the veterans of South Africa until two years ago, on the sixtieth anniversary of the peace that was signed, when we had the surviving South African veterans in the capital city. The first world war, the second world war and Korea are better known. Our activities in NATO and in the peace keeping operations of the United Nations are much better known, but in all of these the flag plays some part.
We overlook the fact that from 1763 to 1870, for over 100 years, Canada was kept inviolate from attacks from the south, and from threats from the south, by British regular troops stationed in Canada and Canadians enlisted in the British regular army and, in the distance, the protection of the British navy. We forget that the cost of all that was paid by the British taxpayer. Why don't we say something about what the British navy did for us in all those years, and under whose protection we rested, including the years 1914 to 1918, up to 1939 and 1945?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Had it not been for British military forces we could not have survived or won in those two great world wars, and it was the union jack that represented British protection. In 1891 Sir John A. Macdonald said this:
For a century and a half this country has grown and flourished under the protecting aegis of the British crown.
Under the broad folds of the union jack we enjoy the most ample liberty to govern ourselves as we please.
That is how Canada began; that is how Canada was maintained; that is how British North America was established. It was under the ample, broad folds of the union jack and the might that was represented by it. Yet we have people saying to us nowadays, "Remove from your flag that jack in the corner." It represents our history. It represents the fact that we have an independent country.

Let me draw your attention to the importance of the union jack in the history of the world. In this debate we have heard people expressing their deep emotions concerning the flag. I do the same. I am presenting to you today my feelings with regard to our Canadian flag and that jack that is in the corner. I grant that, as with everyone, a person is affected by his experiences in life, and I grant that my experience in life has been largely influenced by warfare. It may be I take a different view of some of these problems from some of my friends, but the union jack to me represents something in the history of the world.
I recall, reading from history, what happened during the course of the Napoleonic wars when Britain, so frequently during that 20 year period, had to stand alone against a world conqueror. It was Nelson at Trafalgar and Wellington at Waterloo, with their supporters, who saved the day for us. But it was under what flag? It was under the union jack.
It is not difficult for me to remember the period of the first world war, 1914 to 1918, I know so well the experiences that our country went through then and the threat to our survival. People have forgotten that in 1917 we were almost throttled by the submarine menace. They have forgotten that in March, 1918 Haig sent us this message in the field: "Our backs are to the wall." And they were, and we were sent into action with orders to "hold your position to the last round and the last man." I well remember that occasion. The threat of world domination by Kaiser Wilhelm and imperial Germany was resisted for three full years by France and Britain, with some assistance from Italy; but they virtually stood alone against that threat, and it was some time before American assistance reached us in 1918. Millions of casualties had occurred before that time.
I think of the union jack with regard to the last world war. In the period from May, 1940, when France fell, until the invasion of Russia in June, 1941, what countries stood against that menace? What countries resisted the world conqueror? Think of it. It was the British commonwealth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was the British commonwealth standing alone for one year. Under what flag? The union jack, the flag of Australia, the flag of New Zealand, the flag of South Africa and the flag of Canada, each of them containing the union jack in its fold;

and it was another six months before the United States came to our assistance.
What does that union jack mean with regard to the history of the world? What flags had disappeared? The flag of Czechoslovakia, the flag of Austria, the flag of Poland, the flag of Norway, the flag of Holland, the flag of Belgium, the flag of Luxemburg and the flag of France were gone, succeeded by the crooked cross of Hitler; and it was under that flag that western Europe lay prostrate.
There may be some members in the house who had the experience of liberating villages and towns at the conclusion of the war. It is something you never forget, the excitement of the people and their joy at being set free. I saw this in 1918 in Belgium and France, and again in 1945 in Belgium, France and Holland. After the first exuberance is over, what happens? The flag of the conqueror is torn down, taken to the market square and burnt or otherwise destroyed. Then, out comes the flag of the country. Out comes the flag of France, or of Belgium, or of Holland, and people wave it as they welcome the liberating troops. These are experiences which no one who has seen them can ever forget. This is what a flag means to people- a flag borne in battle. And our flag has been borne in battle.
The flag of the United States means a great deal to the people of that country. We are all admirers of the freedom, the justice and the liberty which result from the activities of that great neighbour of ours. What do the people of the United States say when they take the oath of allegiance, the pledge to the flag?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I wish we had some pledge like that here in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: To me, the Canadian red ensign means as much as does the stars and stripes to any inhabitant of the United States of America.
We have fought shoulder to shoulder with men of other countries. I can say, as a machine gunner in the first world war, and just a corporal, a member of my team came from French Canada. And in the second world war, when I had the opportunity of commanding a regiment, I had under my command people from French Canada and from the various other races which make up the Canadian population. There was no distinction; we stood shoulder to shoulder. In the
Canadian Flag
first world war when the troops of the British commonwealth were coming to the aid of France, Le Temps or the Times of Paris penned these words on October 27, regarding the arrival of troops from the commonwealth. This is what it said:
Today what a remarkable development in history. The Indian troops are in France, the Canadians are coming. They will come under the British flag, and that will not cause any bitterness amongst us. For they come to defend France as well as England. The blood of English Canadians will flow for France; French Canadians will shed blood for England. And among those who fall, none will know whether he dies for the motherland of yesterday or that of today, for the two former rivals are closely united to protect the liberty of the world. There is, perhaps, no better lesson, no brighter chapter in the history of civilized peoples than this final reconciliation after ancient wars. It was prepared by the equal and parallel development of two liberal civilizations.
This sums up my feeling with regard to the flag. This is why I hope and pray that the symbol of the union jack in the red ensign will be maintained in any flag which may be suggested or approved in this country in the future. I cannot do less than express, as we have been invited to do, my own feelings with regard to this matter and I hope I am also expressing the feeling of my constituents in the city of Winnipeg. The letters they write to me say these things. But this is how I feel, myself, and by this I stand.
I hope that as this debate continues, or when it reaches a conclusion, there will be a meeting of minds with regard to this issue. Let us continue shoulder to shoulder in days of peace as we did in war. We can have our political differences, but these are pretty largely on the surface until the emotions of the people are touched. In this particular question, the emotions of the people have been touched and serious harm may result unless we are very careful. But I have expressed my point of view and I hope the Prime Minister will take a second look at this problem and recognize the feelings of those people in Canada who have a regard for their history and their traditions and who see in the Canadian red ensign something of that history and of those traditions, and who have respect for the jack in the corner because it represents so much in the history of the world-justice, liberty, freedom, parliamentary institutions. This is part of the heritage we have derived from our ancestors, the ancestors of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and myself, on whose necks was placed the heel of the Norman conqueror. But we survived. We intermarried with them and we subdued them, and we have progressed to be one of the

Canadian Flag
great colonizing races of the earth and one which has brought freedom and liberty to mankind.
Mr. Speaker, that concludes my expression of opinion with regard to the flag question. I have now to propose, seconded by my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert):
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto:
"and that in conducting such a plebiscite, provision be made, inter alia, in the interests of national unity that the results be published on a national basis only and not by regions or provinces."
I will leave it to others to develop the thought which is contained within that subamendment. But our hope is that if a plebiscite is decided upon, that plebiscite in itself will not be used to create in any way disunity in this country but that, as a result of the method by which the plebiscite is conducted, unity will be preserved. It is with this thought in mind that I present the subamendment to the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising to speak very briefly on a point of order and I hope I can do so in a non-controversial way.
The hon. gentleman has moved a second subamendment. Your Honour made a decision with respect to the first subamendment which has been honoured mainly in the breach by all speakers, including myself. I might be allowed to say that the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat found much more favour in my eyes than have some to which I have listened because he did do as I suggested, yesterday-he spoke about his own views and did not in any way attempt to depreciate those of others.
I would hope that now, if, as the right hon. gentleman said yesterday, we are seeking to have a debate-and there is no thought or element of obstruction in this-that we will, in debating this subamendment, obey the rules of the house.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-[DOT]


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a point of order.


William Skoreyko: On the same point of order, just to correct the impression left on the house by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), does he not remember that the first man in this house to transgress the rules was the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), and then everyone else followed suit?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, can I go further than to blame myself? That I did.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, it seems to me there are a number of members who have not put forward their views on the flag. All who have not spoken so far would want to speak for their constituents and for themselves, and it seems to me that the sum total of their thoughts on the flag should be made available to the house and that they should not be curtailed in any way. In much the same way as the debate on the speech from the throne, I feel that suddenly in the middle of this debate it would be wrong to start curtailing speeches. If precedent is required, I do not believe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) should be singled out. It would seem to me that almost every speaker who has spoken in this debate so far has had the fullest leniency with regard to what he wishes to say. It seems to me that Your Honour must rule that the debate will continue within reasonable bounds. If we were to limit it at this stage I believe it would be wrong, and particularly wrong as far as those who have not yet had an opportunity to speak are concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would underline the fact that I was not asking Your Honour to make any ruling whatsoever. I was just raising the point and I did not express any view that the Chair should take any particular attitude. I merely suggested a little self-restraint on the part of hon. members. I think the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) has said something which makes a lot of sense. If the debate is kept within reasonable bounds, and if those speakers who have not yet spoken, wish to put all their speeches together in one place, I think that would be highly acceptable to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to prolong this debate but the Chair has acted on this general principle, which seems to me right and proper and which I could perhaps restate. Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 119(3), says:
Relevancy is not easy to define. A wrong comprehension of it may have a serious effect on the freedom of speech. Members are often deprived of their right to speak on the pretext that their remarks are irrelevant when as a matter of fact they refer to matters perhaps remote but yet related, even indirectly, to the question under debate. In borderline cases the member should be given the benefit of the doubt. A great deal of latitude must be allowed in the House of Commons which is a forum where every phase of public affairs can be discussed and every member has the right to be heard, even if in doing so he sometimes disregards the rigidity of procedure.

Basing myself on this principle, and in view of the highly charged emotional context of the issue, it seemed to the Chair that members should be dealt with in a most reasonable fashion. On the other hand, I do count on the co-operation of members to be as relevant as possible.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this subamendment. Before I begin the subject material of my discourse I should like to pay special tribute to the previous speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). He is a man who all of us in this house will recognize spoke from the heart, a man who merited this privilege, and who pointed out in no uncertain terms that we have in Canada a heritage of which we can be justly proud, regardless of our political faith.
There is one sentence in the subamendment just proposed particularly important to me and to those I represent. It deals with national unity. In the area where I come from in southwestern Ontario this is of particular interest owing to the peculiar aspect of our geographical location. Perhaps hon. members are not aware that in my area at least nine tenths of the television programs, three quarters of the radio programs and at least three quarters of the newspapers and periodicals originate from United States and its activities political and economic have a distinct bearing and leave their mark on the area I represent.
We are particularly flag conscious and have always been so. I have been trying to determine why this is and I think it is because for many years there has been a very welcome influx into this area of tourists from the United States who take advantage, especially in the summertime, of our many resorts and summer playgrounds. When these tourists come in they bear, either on their cars or on their boats, the flag of the United States of America. When they go to their cottages in Canada, on their flagpoles flies this flag of which they are so very proud and have every reason to be proud. These people exhibit a courtesy that is an example to all nations. Very seldom do they erect in front of their cottages the flag of their nation without unfurling with equal prominence the red ensign of Canada. This to me shows with what respect these visitors to Canada view our national symbol.
This has an effect, Mr. Speaker, on the people in my area. We see the respect held by these visitors from the United States for
Canadian Flag
the flag of Canada. We also try to emulate them in this regard. We too, whenever possible, display the red ensign of Canada; and when we take advantage of going to their beautiful country to the north of us in the state of Michigan and take advantage of their hospitality, we display in no uncertain terms the red ensign of Canada and are also very careful indeed to repeat the courtesy shown to us and to pay equal respect to the flag of their nation.
The people in my area are very conscious of flags that affect them in other ways. It does the heart good to visit the various agricultural fairs in the area, where one of the highlights is the school parade of students from the various schools, who parade down the main street following the band and their drum majors. Without fail every school bears on its standard, and bears proudly, the red ensign, Canada's flag. Also peculiar I think to our area are the many roadside stands where the high quality fruits and vegetables grown locally are displayed for sale to the tourists and local people. Sir, invariably displayed in the stands is one or more red ensigns. Also displayed are red ensigns by the hundreds for sale as souvenirs, and they are eagerly purchased by visitors and tourists travelling through this area. This little red ensign represents the courtesy and hospitality displayed to those tourists and visitors in this great Canada of ours.
Sir, that area is 500 miles from Ottawa. We do not receive daily broadcasts in detail of the happenings here in parliament. We do not hear the daily commentators discussing the pros and cons of the actions taken by parliament. The every day actions in parliament do not make the headlines or front pages of every newspaper in this area. The people, because of that fact, and because their television broadcasts are mainly of United States origin, are perhaps not as quick to sense the ebbs and flows of feelings generated by debate in this house.
I never make a practice of putting letters or newspaper clippings on Hansard, but I should like to beg the indulgence of this house to make one exception. We in southwestern Ontario are ordinary people. I have here a letter written by an ordinary man, and I think this reflects the deep feelings of the people in that area. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read that portion of it which states:
There are many problems that this country faces and we know that one man just cannot solve them all, and we wonder just what the individual can
do to help solve them. I realize that it doesn't

Canadian Flag
do any good to sit home and beef and the only other way I know of to do something is to write to my member of parliament and let him know what at least one person thinks.
He then goes on to state-and this is the part I am very proud of:
I am, like a lot of people, short on the history and background but my wife and I are both veterans and this is the flag we served under. I understand that the Canadian Legion is backing this flag, and who has a better right to make the choice.
Mr. Speaker, please mark this portion:
As far as I am concerned I am not a fanatic about good old England or good old France or good old any other country, but what is mine and my country's I don't want changed when it will serve no useful purpose. Our lives are full of changes, our jobs change, our way of living changes, people change, religion changes but one thing must remain the same and that is our unity. All around the world there is a mighty struggle for something called freedom but there is no such thing until people leam that united they stand divided they fall, give a little, take a little. Yes, I would be disappointed to see our red ensign disappear and a totally different flag wave over our country but if that is what the majority of Canadians wanted I would be the one to support it.
Sir, if there is anything that would make me want to support and fight for a plebiscite it is sentiment expressed from the heart such as in this letter. This country is indeed fortunate to have ordinary citizens, with a love of human dignity in their hearts, who will write such letters as this. Mr. Speaker, I was more than proud to receive it and repeat it in this House of Commons.
Because of the number of days that this debate has continued the people in this country, and in that area I represent, are beginning to sift the wheat from the chaff in their assessment of the basic principles we are discussing here in this house. They are beginning to get over the emotional shock that the action taken by this government created. They are beginning to assess coldly the pros and cons and formulate their own opinions. The one thing I have noticed is the way in which the editors of the various newspapers in that area are taking a very keen interest in the procedings of this house. Without exception they are putting down in black and white the thoughts, as near as they can, of the people with whom they are coming in contact day by day, the people they serve and the people to whom they broadcast the news as honestly and factually as they can.
Sir, the tenor of their writings is in this vein. Nothing is as important to this country today as its national unity. Anything sir, that tends to drive a wedge into any segment of
[Mr. Danforth.j
this country should be discouraged, should be frowned upon, should be blocked and should be fought at every opportunity. That is what we in the Conservative party feel we are doing at this time. We are confident that our action is directed towards preserving the unity of this country, and I say this with very deep conviction.
We in our party have requested that the government refer this matter to the people of Canada hi the form of a plebiscite. We feel under the circumstances that this is the only way the people of Canada will have an opportunity to express their own personal views. We also feel that this is the only way this country and government will ever determine what is the wish of the majority of Canadians.
Many polls have been conducted, including newspaper polls, Gallup polls and polls by members of parliament. We have had opinions expressed, directed and influenced by bodies, pro and con, but I still fail to see how anyone can stand up in this House of Commons today and say that we know what the majority of Canadians prefer. We do not know that. We have no idea in that regard. That is why this party is putting this proposition to the government. Let us try to assess what the majority of the people in this country want. Let us find out for once and for all what the preference is.
Mr. Speaker, we are all Canadians and we do not want disunity. We want national unity as we have never wanted it before. We are now approaching the 100th anniversary of confederation. This issue must be settled, and I am very confident that the government itself, on calm reflection, would not want to force a flag on this country today, if they were sure the majority of the people did not want it. They are Canadians too; they are Canadians first; and I am certain they do not wish to take such action.
This country today wants a distinctive flag. This is not the question. We all want a distinctive flag. The problem facing Canada today is, what goes on this distinctive flag? How do we create this distinctive flag? It is the opinion of the people I represent that never in the life of this country will we by partisan politics evolve a flag that will be suitable to fly on our flagpoles. We must have a flag that is not manufactured, a flag that is not sold, a flag that is not plucked out of the air because it has a pleasing design. We must have a flag that means something to the majority of Canadians and it cannot be evolved in this fashion. It can-

not be sold to the people by a slogan. It cannot be sold to the people by bumper stickers and other methods. It has to provide something that the people of this country themselves want.
This is why we are asking for a plebiscite. Let the people decide. Never will we have unity in this country if there is a large segment of Canadian citizens anywhere who do not feel that the flag flying on the flagpole is their flag. Minority or majority, we cannot have this division of opinion. Certainly we want a distinctive flag for Canada, but we want a flag for Canada that means something in the world, a flag which the Canadian people will be proud to stand and salute.
I am sure the ordinary people of Canada are watching parliament closely. I am not certain that they care very much whether we debate this matter for two days, 20 days or 50 days. They do not care. What they want us to do is to produce results and this is what we are going to do. We are going to let the people decide, and when we are sure we have something that the majority of the people of the country want, parliament will then be proud of its action. But let us not sit here in deliberation and force on the people a flag which it is already apparent many people are dead set against. If we do such a thing, if we commit such a blunder we will have national disunity in this country such as we have never seen before. In the troubled state of the world today Canada can ill afford such disunity or the risk of such disunity becoming permanent. Harmony is what we want and need. We need harmony, and the only way we can have harmony is to make sure that the people are satisfied. I fail to see how we can have such harmony without letting the people have the opportunity to express their view.
The subamendment deals with the method of a plebiscite. We are all aware that in various parts of Canada there are differing strong feelings. In one part of Canada people want the red ensign. In another part of Canada people want no part of the red ensign. Still another segment wants a compromise of both designs. How are we to know? When we have a plebiscite we do not want to know that province X had a great majority for one proposed design. We do not want to know that province Y had a great majority for another proposed design. This is disunity. The only thing we want to know is, what do the majority of Canadians want in a distinctive Canadian 20220-480
Canadian Flag
flag? That is why I make no apology for standing in the House of Commons today and pointing this out to the government. That is why I am speaking on this issue. I am confident that the only way we will achieve the unity that is necessary is by letting the people decide. Let the people decide.
It has taken a long time for the people removed from the political battles of Ottawa to get the picture. We cannot fool the people of Canada. Sometimes news takes a long time to reach them but they finally get the picture. They understand the situation. They know what is going on, and this is as it should be. Never before have the people made their wishes known to me as their representative to the extent they are doing today. We are not dealing with millions of dollars or billions of dollars, the size of which they cannot even imagine. They have never seen a billion dollars piled up. They do not know how big it is, how broad it is, how high it is, how deep it is. But when you talk about the flag they know what that is.
I cannot understand the psychology behind the action of the government in saying to the people of Canada: Even though this red ensign has been your flag, down it comes, you cannot have it; this new three leaf design is going to be your flag. You cannot even treat little children that way. We all know that the best way to make a child or adult want something is to try to take it away from him by force. This will never work. Let us have a plebiscite. Let the people of Canada decide. The people are capable of doing so; they now know the facts. They have their minds made up and they have the ability to express their views. Let us not wait for an election. Let us remove this question from party politics; it does not belong there. It should never have been put there but somewhere a cardinal blunder was made.
In Canada today we have a very grievous problem. We are all aware of it; we know this is a fact. But, sir, let us hope that this government and this parliament will take such action now that the people of Canada now living and those of future generations will be able to look back and say of us: They were statesmen, they were men who believed in Canada and believed in national unity as no other parliament did since confederation.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to participate in this debate, this time of course on the new subamendment, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to be as relevant as

Canadian Flag
the rules require. I am very pleased to see the loquacious Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) in the house, that part time minister, that part time auctioneer, that expert on sillabub, and I hope that some time this afternoon he will rise in his place and make his contribution to this debate. I am a little disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) is not in his seat because, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), he has adopted a new role as the second Speaker of this House of Commons, or the second master of the rules.
In the light of the wording of the new subamendment, I should like to dwell for the next few minutes on the word "unity". I realize that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is a very busy man indeed, and I know that this week he is away attending a conference in Charlottetown. However I have attended the sittings of this house since this debate began some 18 or 19 days ago and I have been a bit disappointed at the amount of time the Prime Minister has spent in this house. The reason for my disappointment is the fact that the resolution under discussion at the moment is in the Prime Minister's name. Certainly the same could not be said of the former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), who spends a great deal of time in the house. I believe all hon. members will agree he is sincerely interested in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible.
Last night, Mr. Speaker, we disposed of the previous subamendment which dealt with the four questions proposed by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More). I regret that the vote on that subamendment was not more favourable to the stand of our party, but at least we know where those who have not spoken on this question now stand. The subamendment that was moved today by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) calls for the results of the plebiscite to be published on a national rather than a regional basis. The reason given for this is unity. I agree wholeheartedly with the subamendment. Later in my remarks I will point out why I am in agreement with it.
In the meantime, let me refer to the remarks made by certain ministers of the crown with reference to the problem of getting certain sections of this country to change their attitude towards the province of Quebec, and how the province of Quebec could change its attitude towards the rest of Canada. I say this because the Minister of Trade and Com-

merce (Mr. Sharp)' said in this house that the adoption of a flag would be a plum to a troublesome minority. I do not believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce had any right to make such a statement in this house. He used those words and it is of concern to us that certain sections of this country feel this is precisely what this government is doing. The term "massive concessions" to the province of Quebec has been used by many of the western Liberal newspapers. It is this kind of thinking that we have to dispel as soon as possible. It is bad, and it is not true. I do not believe the flag is a concession to Quebec any more than it is a concession to the province of Alberta from which I come. It is this sort of attitude that must be dispelled immediately. The only way that this feeling can be dispelled, I suggest, is through a plebiscite. If I may go further in that regard, Mr. Speaker, the results of that plebiscite should be published on a national basis. If we were to publish the total number of those who were for or against any flag, we would completely dispel this feeling at the constituency level. It would not be known and would not be referred to.
The subamendment uses the words "in the interests of national unity". Those are nice words, Mr. Speaker, and this afternoon I want to deal with unity. The unity with which I am primarily concerned is the unity of all the people of this country no matter from what part of Canada they come. When I talk about unity in a political party I cannot help but be reminded of a speech made in this house not long ago by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). He claimed he was a good Liberal and someone interrupted by saying he was the only good Liberal. The hon. member said that his caucus did not see the design for the tri maple leaf flag until Votes and Proceedings had been published on May 27. Why was this done by the Prime Minister? Why did the Prime Minister not consult with his colleagues in the caucus? Why should he put himself in the position of having the hon. member for York-Humber recognized by the Chair and then have the hon. member say that the members of the party were not consulted in the caucus and that they were informed of the action taken by the Prime Minister at the same time as the opposition? I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but the hon. member for York-Humber says he feels he has a special place in the Liberal party. He feels he should have

been consulted and he was not. This does not make for unity within a political party.
Then I may say that not too long ago the Edmonton Journal carried an article in relation to this question under the headline "M.P.'s wonder how free a vote on flag choice can be". We are talking about unity, and I will deal with that a little later. However, the Prime Minister certainly did a lot to unite the Liberal party. One day he told them there would be a free vote on the issue. They were told there would be no question of confidence involved; it would not be a matter of the government standing or falling on the decision. Then later he said the government would stand or fall on the result of the free vote. Last night we had the example of a free vote. Those who spoke against the resolution were absent. I am not saying they were out of Ottawa; they were not in the House of Commons. Is that a free vote, Mr. Speaker?
The Conservative party members were in the house, however, and voted as their consciences dictated. I suppose the newspapers across the country will say that the Conservative party is split. Here is a headline in one newspaper just handed to me by my colleague from Okanagan Boundary, "Quebec P.C.'s Split Ranks in Vote". There is no such splitting of ranks. The leader of our party said its members could vote as their consciences dictated. Some of our members could well have stayed out of the house last night, as did some of the members on the other side to save embarrassing the Prime Minister, but they did not. This is what unity means in a political party.
Returning to the article I was referring to a moment ago, headed, "M.P.'s Wondering How Free Vote on Flag Choice Can Be", I wish to quote one little paragraph:
Around parliamentary corridors there was some grumbling about the strings Mr. Pearson has attached to the so-called free flag vote. All M.P.'s -including certainly the Liberals-are keenly aware that another general election can come at any time. In their concern about this they recognize that while they may not be "read out of the party," they will have to seek re-election and need the backing, financial and otherwise, of party headquarters in the campaign.
What does this mean. I do not want to suggest the Prime Minister would do this, but there are ministers of the crown who are capable of approaching members of the Liberal party and suggesting to them that if they took an opposing stand to the government they would not be "read out" of the party but they could not obtain financial and party support when the next election comes. To me this is certainly not a free vote.
Canadian Flag
The subamendment refers to the interests of unity, and in that connection I would refer to unity in the services. What about all those servicemen who have made representations to the government and to private members, appealing to them to do what they can to save the red ensign? The Prime Minister went to Winnipeg and told the legionnaires they could not have it, that they were going to be stuck with three maple leaves, that he was going to give them this flag whether they wanted it or not. Is this creating a sense of unity in the armed services? I suggest it is not.
A good friend of mine in the city of Edmonton, in a recent sermon delivered in the United church, used these words:
Do you wonder that our veterans love the red ensign? After all, they are the ones who learned the hard way what sacrifice and suffering on behalf of others really means. Extract this idea from the armed forces and you extract their strength, their pride, their glory and their effectiveness. But Mr. Pearson says this must go.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, what lack of unity can do to the armed forces, to those who have served in them in the past and those who are presently serving in them. No doubt they wonder what the government's next move will be to disunite them further.
Not making any mention of the tri-service or the statements made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) about the millions of dollars he is going to save-and that has nothing to do with this debate-I simply say that his attitude and that of the Prime Minister with respect to the flag have done as much to disunite the armed forces as any step taken by any government in the history of our country.
When I think of the letter from the Reverend Chubb containing a request that the members of this house look at the discarding of the red ensign very carefully, not only has it shown that disunity has been created in the Liberal party but it has shown that the same thing has happened in the armed forces, and it has shown representatives of religious bodies of this country feel as strongly as those of the armed forces.
One cannot help but think of some of the statements made both inside and outside the house by responsible cabinet ministers, with reference to the flag question. In my opinion a flag that embodies a religious cross in its design serves to unite people, if through no other means than the medium of religion. The new flag does not have a religious cross in it.

Canadian Flag
What is so surprising about the proposed flag, and I mentioned this in one of my other speeches, is the fact that when the question was posed to one of the ministers of the crown, as to what the three maple leaves stood for, his answer was one that I think would serve to disunite Canada quicker than any other reply he might have made. This is a quotation from a Calgary newspaper:
Justice Minister Guy Favreau said Tuesday he believes French Canadians will support a national flag bearing a symbol such as the maple leaf.
He told a press conference Quebec residents do not want a symbol such as the fleur-de-lis, representing French history, any more than they want a symbol depicting Canada's British heritage.
He said his feelings and those of Prime Minister Pearson are Canada's flag should "refrain as far as possible from telling the story of any particular part of Canada."
The Quebec member of parliament was here to address a public meeting.
The maple leaf, he said, would be a proper symbol.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it may have been, but he was pressed a little further the following day in Vancouver, when somebody asked him, "Just what did you mean when you said that no particular reference should be made to any part of Canada in the flag?" This is what a newspaper report gave as his answer:
He said that the simple, three maple leaf design favoured by Prime Minister Pearson was "very indicative of the three groups that form Canada."
He said one leaf could well represent the British heritage, the second, the French heritage and the third the heritage of all Canadians of other ancestry. Yet a day earlier he had said that Canada's flag should refrain as far as possible from telling the story of any particular part of Canada or any particular group. The Minister of Justice may have been a little confused but I wonder how many people who have their origin in countries other than Britain or France have written to compliment him for making such a statement. The question which arises in my mind is this: You are a French Canadian, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am of Ukrainian origin; which one of the maple leaves on that flag belongs to either one of us? If the Prime Minister had stood up in this house and said this is precisely what these three leaves represent, I would be the first to resume my seat to the end that this matter might be disposed of. But I am not very happy about splitting Canada into three ethnic areas, the French, the English, and then all the others as if they did not matter. The hon. gentleman did not have the courtesy to name the various

countries, from which these others came, to make up this great country of ours.
Then, to add further to our disunity, an article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen not too long ago under the heading "Government Hunts New Design for Flag". I will refer to it shortly. First, they tried to unite Canada with a three maple leaf design which only served to disunite the country further-if we agree that Canada was disunited at any time, and I am not sure it was.
Hon. members will recall we were promised a free vote on the flag issue. We were told that no matter how it turned out, the vote would not be considered a vote of confidence. Then we were told there would be no free vote; that the issue would be treated as a vote of confidence and that if the government lost it would fall. Again, we were told later on that there would be a free vote after all. Hon. members will recall, too, the discussion of the two-flag resolution and of the resolution dealing with the two national anthems. If you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, there was an unprecedented ruling to split the resolution on the flags. I can foresee that when this question now before us is settled we shall be back immediately debating the pros and cons of a second Canadian flag. Will you tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a Canadian, if really, deep down in your heart, you feel we need two flags in Canada? I suggest it is the last thing we need. If we are to be Canadians united in one Canada, is it not logical that we should have one flag showing our allegiance to the commonwealth and showing our connection with France, if you will, embodied in one design? This could very easily be done with the present red ensign. Canadians united in one country do not need two national flags any more than they need two national anthems.
The splitting of the resolution only served to confuse matters further. Newspapers across the country have criticized not only the opposition but the government, because some 19 days have been spent debating the flag question. I wonder how some of these newspaper writers will feel after the debate has taken place on three more resolutions which will probably be put before us-the second resolution dealing with the second flag and the others, now in one resolution which will probably be split again so that we may have separate discussions, on the two national anthems for Canada. If they think we are in difficulty now, let me tell them I can see a lot more choppy, muddy water ahead.

Last night, I say, we had this free vote-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member; I was following his speech with interest. But a while ago he said he would make some comments about the vote which took place last night. I know he is familiar with the provisions of standing order 35 which forbids hon. members to reflect on a vote in the house, and I am sure he will have this in mind when he refers to what took place last night.


William Skoreyko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize if I have in any way transgressed the rule. I wanted to point out what disunity will do not only to a political party but to the people of this country if the attitude of the Prime Minister does not change very quickly. I had hoped that when this debate on the flag question was drawing to a close there might be a degree of agreement expressed by the people who correspond with me almost daily. Some two months ago, they said: I will not accept anything but a union jack, or, I will not accept anything but a red ensign. They have written to me subsequently and said: Well, the debate has gone on and on, please do something to get this question settled and get on with the other business of the House of Commons. So I wrote back to say I had done my part; I had spoken in the house and expressed my point of view as well as theirs, and I was hopeful that some compromise could be reached in the very near future. I wonder what thoughts passed through the minds of some people who were hoping for a reasonably acceptable solution in the course of the next few days or weeks when they say this article in the Citizen, to which I shall refer later in greater detail. After 19 days of controversy over the flag the government now say they are looking for a new design. The article to which I refer is dated August 27 and the Minister of Transport when he spoke yesterday did not deny what the article said. Do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that one of the ministers of the crown should rise in his place this afternoon, lay the matter squarely before this House of Commons and let us know precisely what their attitude is?
The Prime Minister on a number of occasions said there would be no free vote, that it would be treated as a non-confidence motion. Subsequently he changed his mind five times; at least that is my count, it may be one more or one less. What do the people of Canada today think when, on picking up the newspaper, they read "Government hunts
Canadian Flag
new design for flag"? Does it mean that a man sitting in his front room tonight reading his newspaper will for the next 19 days after this debate is concluded have to listen to the same thing? Every time one turns on the radio the news is about parliament and the flag. The people of Canada are tired of the flag and will be as tired of it in the next month or two as they are of general elections. I suggest that if there is any truth to the rumour that there is a second design, then someone on the front benches of the government should stand up and say so. If it is the case then let us suspend this debate now. There is no point in going on with it. Let us bring in some legislation. The pension plan has to be dealt with, and the government intends to deal with it. Then they can bring in a new design and we can see what it looks like. Or has the government made up its mind that eventually an opportunity will be given to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to rise in his place at the opportune time and move that the government adopt a single maple leaf flag? I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, if that is the course of action the government is contemplating, that I will be prepared to make four or five more speeches on the single maple leaf flag.
In conclusion, if the rule of national unity has some meaning to the government I suggest that expressions like "troublesome minorities" and "massive concessions" never be used again in this house. Every time a member of this house uses that kind of language it serves only to put a little more fuel on the fire.
I was going to make reference to an article dated August 22, 1964 by Mr. Charles Lynch of Southam news services entitled "A nightmare in diplomacy". This article is relevant to the subject before us and deals precisely with the matters I have dealt with during the course of my remarks. It commences in this way:
The Pearson government's stand on the new flag started to soften almost from the moment that the Prime Minister unveiled the three maple leaf design-and today it appears distinctly mushy.
Instead of becoming in any real sense our national emblem, the three leaf flag seems to be receding to the status of just another design, which may or may not come before an all-party committee of parliament.
It was our hope in this party that the government could offer some reasonable solution to the problem by way of a committee. Instead the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) had the audacity to come before this house and tell us that he was willing to accept a compromise which would leave Mondays

Canadian Flag
open for government business and force the opposition to sit in the house from eight o'clock in the morning until midnight. This is supposed to be, in the words of the Minister pf Justice, a reasonable compromise. Those words mean only one thing to me, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the Minister of Justice, on instructions from someone, was not interested in finding a reasonable solution to the problem.
The article goes on:
Government by diplomacy and compromise.
It is sad because it represents one more bit of evidence of Mr. Pearson's determination to govern by diplomacy and compromise-those admirable qualities that more than any other have served to weaken his ministry.
To me, Mr. Pearson's decisiveness in producing the three leaf flag, as a focal point around which new flag sentiment could rally, was admirable. In decisive fashion, he made it clear that this was the new flag and that the government would stand or fall on it. Now was the time for all good Canadians to rally round.
I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how they rallied round. The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) practically bolted from his party, although I see he is now back in again. This article continues:
In the subsequent confusion, the Prime Minister seemed to be saying that he would stake the life of his government on the adoption of the union jack, in its Queen and commonwealth context.
If that is his attitude and if he is determined to have a Canadian flag embodied in a Queen and commonwealth context, then for heaven's sake what is wrong with the plea which some 80 Conservatives have made in this House of Commons with regard to modifying the red ensign. In it you have all those things which the people across Canada seem to want. But the Prime Minister says no, it will not be the red ensign; it is going to be the three maple leaf flag-one leaf for the French, one leaf for the English and the other for all the others who do not matter.
I see my time is drawing to a close but I want to make reference to two western newspapers which are Liberal supporters. Both of them during the early stages of the debate indicated that they could not support the three maple leaf flag because it represented nothing of any meaning to them. Then weeks later after considerable heart searching they found that perhaps if this was what the Prime Minister wanted they would go along with it, although they regretted seeing the red ensign trampled into the dirt. Its most recent editorial adopts the line that we should get it over with. The Albertan says that there is deadlock and that the bones are bare. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what

both of these newspapers contend? They contend that if ever there was justification for closure this is it, the government's diffidence notwithstanding. Parliament, after all, is the ultimate place for decisions to be made on proposals advanced by the government.
Mr. Speaker, there is no point in my reminding you that this is a newspaper in the city of Edmonton which favours the Liberal party. This kind of attitude on the part of a newspaper in this country, knowing what the results were of using closure in 1956, is nothing short of disgusting.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Gerard Ouellel (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, 2,000 years ago we had a promise of peace on earth and goodwill unto men. Alas, when I consider daily events affecting mankind, do you think, hon. members, I would dare to say that this message from heaven has received enough consideration to provide for the people of the earth the quietness and the stability desirable for the accomplishment of man's natural destiny? Has Canada, this great, rich and young country, reached that degree of Christian civilization desired and visioned by the pioneers of our two main national groups which represent the majority of the Canadian people?
Those of you who know me are aware that I am a farmer concerned about carrying out faithfully the duties of my profession and vocation. They also recognize that I dedicated my life to the protection, the defence and the safeguard of the interests of the farmers. I bear proudly in my heart the flag of farming unionism, mutualism and co-operation. And that is why I want to say here, in passing, that never, since the administration of Intend-ant Bigot, were the farmers, and especially the settlers, placed in a position as distressing as the one they are in today.
Those noble flags that were our family farms in eastern Canada and especially in the lower St. Lawrence region, are now being replaced by community pastures, and I am sorry to see that serious people consider it as a permanent and imperative solution.
As regards the flag of Canada, which has been the main issue lately, the remarks made by certain hon. members lead me to believe that moderation in our general behaviour might soon be a thing of the past.
Do you believe that I am ready today to give up the affection I feel for the Canadians

in my group? Do you believe also that I refuse to respect actively English speaking Canadians? Not at all.
Tomorrow like yesterday and today, I want to bear witness in support of those who call to the attention of this parliament the need for the flag to represent faithfully our common origins.
I have listened to and read carefully the speeches made in the house and the press reports intended for the information of the public. After serious consideration, I wish to announce that I totally support the Canadian flag design suggested by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent). In my opinion, a flag without any signs representing or symbolizing what the union jack and the fleur-de-lis stand for will not be appreciated by the majority of the Canadian people neither today nor tomorrow.
Yes, a two-cross and one green and vivid maple leaf flag would stress the importance of developing the wealth of the two cultures which have contributed to make Canada a land of hope and promise. Yes, we should approve and adopt that flag design.
I hasten to point out to those who object to my opinion and my testimony that they should at least know how childish it is to feel that to remain faithful to our past is to hold the future in contempt. In my opinion, to assume a wise attitude, it is necessary to consider the opportunity of a compromise on the flag issue.
I have stated as briefly as possible my opinion on the matter and I like to hope that fervent prayers should be heard.
I would like to thank particularly the hon. members for Kamloops (Mr. Willoughby), for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth), for Saskatoon (Mrs. Jones), for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg), for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Hamilton) and for Nicolet-Yamaska for the kindness and fairness they have shown when carrying out their duty in this house on this very important issue.
I would ask all hon. members to co-operate for the finding of a solution which would respect the pride and nobility of the majority of the people.
Canadians have had hard times in the past, and in the future they will undoubtedly have the opportunity of showing unfailing wisdom.
Our good will is the guarantee of orderly stability. My last word will be: Long live Canada and its citizens.
I should like to add a word of praise about all the Canadian citizens with whom I discussed this delicate issue. They have always
Canadian Flag
shown me great respect even when our opinions were absolutely contradictory.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?
Inasmuch as we are dealing with an amendment to an amendment concerning a plebiscite, could the hon. member tell me whether or not he is in favour of such a plebiscite?


Gérard Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Longueuil would like the member for Rimouski to give him an answer which, in some respects, could raise certain problems.
For his information, I am glad to say that, should all possible negotiations in order to reach a compromise fail to achieve the results we hope for, I would be in favour of a Canadian plebiscite.


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this subamendment I should like to state that I feel we have come to the nub of the problem, and that is the preservation of national unity in Canada. It becomes very obvious, and I think it is obvious to most people in Canada, that the best way we can preserve the unity of Canada is to dispense with this debate immediately and work-


Mr. MacNaughl:: By accepting this flag.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: -behind the scenes on a compromise which will be acceptable to all Canadians.


William Skoreyko: Why does the minister not get up and make a speech?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: So far as unity is concerned, I say that the action of the Liberal government in bringing about disunity and division within Canada will be a matter of history. We now see in western Canada such newspaper comment as the following in the Edmonton Journal of August 25 under the heading "Partition for Canada?":
Liberal strategists who formulate policy might well have provided their minions with calling cards with the legend "Have tails, will grovel."...
The Pearson government is indirectly responsible for the chaos that is evident to eastern Canadians.
This is the kind of thing they have created in Canada. Do they want to go on aggravating the situation more and more? Surely the obvious answer is that this debate should be suspended and that we should get on with the business of Canada.


Mr. Peters:: You move it and I will second it.

Canadian Flag


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Stubbornness is no substitute for statesmanship. If the Prime Minister wants to do so he can continue his stubborn attitude. He can try to make a hero of himself which he very nearly did when he first set out on this track. But he has bungled the whole thing so badly. He has failed to acknowledge or accept the views of many millions of Canadians and is continuing with stubborn petulance to try to force down the throats of Canadians a flag that the majority obviously do not want. To suggest for a moment that he has a mandate to do so is foolish, as the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) so ably pointed out. We were a little disappointed he was not with us last evening to back up his able presentation.
This is the general feeling across Canada now. I should like to quote for a moment from the Victoria Daily Colonist with regard to the stubbornness of the Prime Minister in pursuing his present policy and trying to force this flag down our throats, in dividing Canada and forcing a division which, if he continues, may take years to heal. The editorial has this to say:
Where does the blame for the present parliamentary stalemate lie? Solely in Mr. Pearson's obduracy over the flag issue. This is the core that keeps parliament sitting and the normal business of the country held back from speedy progression.
This has been evident ever since he introduced the flag resolution. To begin with he held the threat of an election over M.P.s' heads did they fail to pass the flag measure, which was tantamount to holding a gun at their heads and depriving them of unbiased decision.
I want to say a word a little later with regard to the free vote which we saw last evening.
He refused a free vote on the subject. While blaming Mr. Diefenbaker for non-compliance he has now prevented the compromise suggestion that would delay the contentious flag bill to a fall session by insisting on an unacceptable time limit to its debate.
It is not so much the question of the time limit that is unacceptable. It is this flag which is unacceptable to a majority of Canadians and we as Conservatives have to see that it is never unfurled on a public standard in Canada, period. There is no other attitude we can take. The editorial continues:
It is not obstructionism on the part of Mr. Diefenbaker that is at fault but the Prime Minister's insistence on having his own way. Mr. Pearson says he is not prepared to call an election on any of the current issues facing parliament, the flag of course being the main one. Is he afraid of the result?

I say he is.
This would probably be the quickest and most salutary solution to a parliamentary stalemate that grows worse with each passing day.
I too say that if he is going to insist on trying to force this flag upon us then let him call an election. Let him call an election on this issue. I do not particularly care for another election but if he is going to insist on pushing this bunting down our throats at a time when national unity in Canada is precarious, if he insists on choosing this time to push his flag upon us, then surely he must face the consequences. As I said initially, he cannot substitute stubbornness for statesmanship. He should ask the people. If he does not want an election then let him ask the people through a plebiscite, and so that we will create unity let us not have the results announced provincially. Let the results be announced on a countrywide basis. Let us keep it ultra secret. We cannot rely upon the responsibility of the press in this matter because the press of Canada has shown itself in the main to be completely irreponsible.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You have just read from the press.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: That was a private article and I only read it because I agree with it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There are two kinds of press.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I will have a few more words to say about the press and particularly with regard to the editorial which was quoted by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmoton East (Mr. Skoreyko). I want to say a few words with regard to the editorial in the Edmonton Journal particularly because we in northern Alberta are faced with a monopoly situation. It is the only newspaper and it is thrust down our throats somewhat like Mr. Pearson's pennant. We have got to accept it whether we like it or not.
When the flag issue was first raised this newspaper was against replacing the union jack or red ensign. They wrote editorials saying it was a shame that we were going to have to go to Honolulu to look at the union jack. I do not know whether their conscience is troubling them, but now they are writing editorials saying that we should get it over with, and advocating closure. I wonder whether the publisher is not just covering up for himself or did he get a phone call from somebody else in the Southam organization, which seems to be in the hands of the Liberal party? The hon. member for York-

Humber outlined some of the benefits that can come from supporting your party at the right time. Was the Southam organization told there would be no more senatorships unless they fell into line? Was it a case like that of Maclean's, which got rid of its editor and Ottawa correspondent without a murmur from their friends in the journalistic profession? They allowed these men to be scalped without one of them having enough gumption to stand up and protect them. They talk about freedom of the press: They are using it now to cover up their own inadequacies.
On the subject of national unity and the manner in which the government has brought in this flag I want to quote rather extensively from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of August 31 last written by no less a person than Mr. Peter Newman. We who have been here over the past few years have a good knowledge of Mr. Newman's writings. Some of them we did not like because he was a bit inaccurate, but some we had to accept. However, he has a very interesting view with regard to the flag situation and I think it is worth while to put some of his comments on the record. He is talking about the fact that the Prime Minister wanted to become a hero out of the flag debate and the main theme of his article is that the hero of the flag debate may now become the victim. I have to admit that Mr. Newman may be slightly biased because he wrote that the present government was a grey, dismal failure, and he was fired or was told he could not write such things. I am not sure which. In any event, he had the courage of his convictions and wrote what he felt about it, even though it cost him his job. As I say, he may be a little bit upset. He may still feel that any way we can get rid of this dismal grey failure of a government would be worth while. In any event, he goes on talking about the hero of the flag who may become the victim, and I quote:
But when the actual flag resolution was tabled by Pearson in the Commons it turned out to be a piece of legislative whimsy that defied the laws of political gravity. Instead of being the only major nation in the world without its own distinctive flag, we were urged to perpetuate our unique position by becoming the only land on the earth's surface to fly two official flags. Once again, Lester Pearson had tried to square the circle of political leadership.
This double-barrelled flag resolution apparently grew out of the insistence-
I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is not here.
-of Jack Pickersgill, who first articulated the idea at a little-reported young Liberal rally in Quebec city on February 2, 1962. Pickersgill suggested then that Canada should have one flag
Canadian Flag
to represent the commonwealth connection as well as a distinctive flag of its own and pointed out that there's no reason "why Canada can't have two official flags just as she has two official languages."
We are talking about national unity and those are the views of the Minister of Transport. The article continues as follows:
As Newfoundland's chief representative in the federal Liberal hierarchy, Pickersgill in turn was under pressure from Premier Joey Smallwood, who fears that a new flag would become the focal point of anti-Canadian feeling on this island.
In retrospect, it's clear that Pearson's two-flag resolution was a political miscalculation of major proportions.
Then, I wanted to put on the record what this writer has to say with regard to the question of a filibuster, if you can call it that. I quote:
The Conservatives' filibuster has not (as is generally believed) prevented parliament from dealing with a backlog of essential legislation. The Liberal administration, unaccountably, has no major bills ready for debate.
Is this flag debate being forced upon us because the Liberal cabinet does not have legislation ready for debate? Is this why we are debating the flag? I think some members on the front benches should have something to say with regard to that.
The pension plan, which was supposed to be the showpiece of the Liberals' first year in office is now in its fourth, sad mutation.
But the Tory filibuster has succeeded in softening Pearson's stand. He has retreated on his pledge (repeated as late as June 18) that his government would fall with the rejection of his flag.
Then he goes on to talk about the proposed alternatives that are available to the Prime Minister, and I think they are worthy of consideration. I quote:
The Liberal leader now must choose between three alternatives: He can ram his flag design through the Commons by using closure and thereby provide Diefenbaker with a natural election issue; he can allow the flag to go before a parliamentary committee, which might delay a decision indefinitely or force on him a compromise design which he could not accept; or he can let the Tory filibuster continue and hope that public revulsion with Diefenbaker's tactics will force a Conservative retreat.
Let me say here and now that we do not intend to retreat because we represent the majority of the people in Canada. As pointed out so ably by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), Mr. Newman ends his article in this way:
It's a grim choice, but Pearson isn't discouraged. "Every good flag has to be bom in battle," he told a friend recently, "and this one is no exception."

Canadian Flag
Are we having this flag debate so that Liberal ministers may get their legislation ready, and so that we can cover up their faults? Is this the reason we are discussing this emotional issue which may divide this country? Is this government going to continue to perpetuate the division in Canada? How much better it would be if we were to have national unity in Canada and get on with the business before the house, get on with legislation which would bring about improved economic opportunities and improved economic returns to the people. If we do not improve the standards of living in some areas of Canada, how are we going to get unity? We are not going to achieve it through a flag. We are going to get unity in Canada by improving the standards of living of some areas so that there will be equality right across this country. This was the task we of the official opposition set ourselves at a time when we formed the government, and we took many steps toward this goal. This is what this government should be doing now, instead of forcing an emotional issue upon the people of this country and furthering disunity.
How much better it would be if, for instance, the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), were discussing legislation to improve the standard of living in some areas of Canada, instead of reading the newspaper this afternoon. How much better it would be if we were discusing legislation which would increase the economic opportunities of all Canadians. Are we discussing the flag because the minister has not done his homework and has not got legislation ready? I understand he has many $10,000 a year men in his department. Let them get busy and draft some legislation to be introduced in this house which will do something to bring about unity in Canada and to improve the standard of living of our people. We have a big job to do.
How much better it would be if we were spending our time listening to the minister of northern affairs introduce legislation to solve the problems of our north country. He is quoted enthusiastically by correspondents about what should be done in our north. So far, we have heard nothing but words. We want to see some action from this so-called decisive government. We have not heard a decision yet except the stubborn refusal of the Prime Minister to do anything except consider the flag, even if it divides this country for years to come. No one said there was anything wrong with the old one. Even the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. 
Caouette) said they did not care what kind of flag we had in the west of Canada because they had their own flag. Obviously, the Prime Minister wanted it to go through, and this is clear if one reads Mr. Lynch's report. This is the Prime Minister's personal touch; he wants this moment of glory. However he is now heading down the road toward becoming the victim of his own glorious notion. I think the people of Canada should have an improved standard of living, and then we could come together under one flag that would be acceptable to all the people of this country.
But oh no, we are going to be forced to go on and, as the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko) said, this is just a start. This is the first of the bipartite flag resolution. Then we have to go on to the bipartite anthem resolution. Is the Prime Minister going to keep us here for the next year deciding on a symbol? Let us get on with the work that is to be done. Let us make ARDA a living thing. Let it not die, as the government is trying to let it. There is work to be done even in Alberta, in ARDA. There is work to be done in Quebec. These are things which will bring unity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I realize some of his remarks are related to the subamendment, but when he discusses such things as ARDA in Alberta he is straying some distance away from the subject matter before the house.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Well, Your Honour, I am just pointing out that the subamendment calls for a provision which will create unity in Canada. Goodness knows, we need something. With the government we have in office we need anything we can get if we are to perpetuate unity in this country. I am merely pointing out that rather than have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) sitting here reading his mail and the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) reading the paper, they could be doing concrete things. We in western Canada are waiting for the Minister of Agriculture to bring in his farm machinery bill. That is one of the things we want to get on with.


Mr. Hays:: The farmers are waiting too.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Let's go then, my hon. friend.


Harry William Hays: Let's vote then.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: We are not
going to allow the party in power to push this flag on the Canadian people, because it does not have a mandate to do it and, as I

said a moment ago, we represent the majority thought at the moment in Canada on the flag issue.
With regard to the plebiscite and the issuing of federal results, I would point out that the Prime Minister and his cabinet, like all good politicians, are a little bit egotistical. They said this is what we were elected for, to decide a flag for Canada. I dispute that. Many politicians I know are a little bit egotistical. Most politicians get here because they are leaders in some parts of their communities or constituencies, but not for a moment does this mean they have the ability to decide on an emotional question such as the flag. What about all the other people who feel they do not have that political bent but are concerned emotionally about the flag. Are we going to refuse them an opportunity to express their views about a symbol such as the flag? This is something that should be settled by a plebiscite, but I do not agree there are very many other things that should be settled that way.
We were elected to run the country as members of parliament. We were not elected to settle the question of an emotional symbolism. As I said before, we were elected to get on with the job of improving the economic situation in Canada, of providing defence, of passing legislation with regard to taxes, and we have had some evidence from the government of how it can do that. We are charged with the job of making Canada run. We are not charged nor are we suitably equipped to pick an emotional symbol for Canada. X do not believe politicians are emotionally equipped to pick an emotional symbol. We have already seen evidence of this.
At first the Prime Minister said it would be a free vote and each member would be allowed to vote as his conscience dictated. Then he said his government would stand or fall on the result, and the other day he reversed his position and said there would be a free vote, but by that time it was far too late. This is the very reason why politicians cannot decide the flag. Last night we saw that all those people on the government backbenches who were opposed to the government stand did not vote. So, it became an emotional issue and this emotional issue is decided on a political basis. Therefore instead of a national flag we have a political party flag. This is what happens if you allow politicians to decide a flag. It is going to be decided on the basis of political party lines and, as the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) said, "You either vote the party
Canadian Flag
line or you don't get into the Senate". I leave that for your consideration.
I wish to quote from the Toronto Telegram of August 22 on the question of a free vote:
At this stage, with party lines hardened, it is difficult to conceive of a truly free vote.
Having shown, belatedly, a willingness to retreat from his earlier stubborn demands for the banner of his choice, he now should go one step further and measure public sentiment by plebiscite.
Perhaps Mr. Pearson fears the outcome of such a testing of public opinion.
That is my opinion, that he fears the outcome of a plebiscite as much as he fears an election. It is my opinion he should have one or the other, dissolve the house and call an election on the flag issue, or present it to the people in the form of a plebiscite.
There is no reason why this obstructive and divisive bill should not be shelved pending a reference to the people. There is no urgency. Most Canadians outside Quebec appear to be quite satisfied with the flag we have now. In Quebec, the matter is of little importance as there they fly the Laurentian flag with its white cross and fleur-de-lis.
Until Mr. Pearson softens his stand, the opposition is justified in continuing a modified filibuster. As distasteful as such devices are in parliament, no other method seems practical in the face of Mr. Pearson's stubbornness.
The way out of the parliamentary impasse is clear: a plebiscite to end the long debate and to allow parliament to get on with more important legislation.
With regard to the Prime Minister causing disunity in Canada, I want to say he has even caused disunity in some of our minor parties. The Social Credit league of Alberta passed a resolution endorsing the maintenance of the red ensign as Canada's national flag. People in Alberta are quite satisfied with the red ensign. Most of them would be quite satisfied with a modification of that ensign to denote the history of Canada, so eloquently outlined this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). But most of all people in Alberta are anxious about the government, about its stubborn refusal to get on with the business of Canada. We come from a country out there where we believe there are many things to do, many opportunities for our people, and to get some of these opportunities going we need government direction. We are not getting it from this government. Fortunately the last government which was in power did something. We did get some direction. We are still seeing the benefits of it out there.
Recently the minister of northern affairs went to drive the silver spike at the Northwest Territories boundary of the Great Slave Lake Railway. I wonder why the Minister of

Canadian Flag
Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) did not go. We sat in this house and watched him vote against the construction of this railway. Now his colleagues have a big delegation to drive in the silver spike. If they really want to name this railway properly, they should call it the Baldwin-Bigg railway for northern Alberta. Here was an example of unity, an example of compromise in order to prevent a split in a certain section of this country. I think this could serve as an example to members of this house, particularly on the government side, with regard to the matter now before us. Here were two members, each representing half of the northern part of a province. A railway was proposed to go through one of these areas. By their ability and statesmanship, these members were able to accept one another's points of view and got this railway going into the north country, leaving aside all pettiness and questions of personal betterment so as to enable the building of this railway to begin. This is a real example of what the government should be doing with regard to these things.
If we raise the standard of living by providing opportunities for all Canadians-I come back to this theme-we shall have unity in this country. If the standard of living is raised to an equal level for all our people we shall have no trouble in finding a symbol. By the time we have done that, as a result of advances in education and communications, we shall be able to sit down and find a symbol which will be acceptable to the whole of this nation.
In conclusion may I repeat that the government owes it to the people of Canada to suspend this debate, to put this resolution back where they have put three or four of them in the past-they have a place for these things-and leave it there until the time comes when there is such unity in Canada that we can have a single flag which will suit everybody. Let us get on with the legislation of the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury). Let us put some of his $10,000 a year boys to work on contributing directly to the prosperity of this nation. At the same time, we do not intend to submit to the pressure now being applied. We shall not allow this bunting to be unfurled in Canada.
fTranslation]


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, in rising once again in this discussion, I want to say right away that I have no apologies to offer for doing so, because I think I would be remiss as a member of the

house not to air my views as well as those of my constituents.
It is generally admitted, Mr. Speaker, that the way in which the flag issue was introduced in the house roused a whole gamut of protests throughout Canada which can only result in a threat to Canadian unity. Now, it is with this thought in mind and the idea of doing something to strengthen Canadian unity that I rise this afternoon to explain my position.
I would like first of all to repeat that freedom of action and thought, which is our privilege in this party, entitles me to repeat that I favour a distinctive national flag. Yesterday's events, Mr. Speaker, proved that freedom of action and a free vote only exist on this side of the house. I cannot dwell on this matter, but may I point out the clearly established fact that we of the Conservative party are fully free with regard to the national flag as well as to all other matters submitted to us, and if we come back to the subject, it is because we believe that it is our duty to do so. I would like to ask hon. members opposite, who are so talkative outside the House of Commons, to seize this opportunity of submitting to the house the views of the people who sent them here.
Mr. Speaker, I must say again that the situation has not changed at all since the resolution on both flags was before us. By the way, I want to mention first that we on this side of the house, the members of the official opposition, support one flag, and not two as provided by the resolution now before us.
It is clear that the Conservative party has been supporting a distinctive national flag for many years. I want to repeat before the house that we want only one national flag, and not two flags, with one borrowed from a foreign nation.
Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with the plebiscite question, I should like to call the attention of the house to the result of a poll I made in my riding-I say a poll, but to be more accurate, I should say two polls, because I carried out two-during the month of May, when we heard that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) would introduce a resolution concerning two flags. I immediately contacted my constituents to know exactly the viewpoint of those I represent here. On May 22, 1964, I sent 1,600 questionnaires to the people in my riding, who represent all classes of society. Here are those questions:
Are you in favour of keeping the Canadian red ensign as our national flag?

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will be interested to know that in my riding, 62 people answered that they were in favour of keeping the Canadian red ensign while 347 were in favour of other flags.
As a second question I asked them:
Do you think that the flag issue should have priority before the unemployment issue, the pension plan or the farm problem?
The results were as follows: 132 replied that the flag issue should be settled first, while 278 were in favour of the settlement of the unemployment issue, the farm problem and the adoption of the pension plan.
The third question I asked them was:
Supposing that you are in favour of a new flag, would you indicate below which one you prefer:
1.	Flag embodying the Canadian red ensign and the fleur-de-lis?
Seventeen were in favour of that design. I carry on:
2.	Flag embodying the Canadian red ensign, the maple leaf and the fleur-de-lis.
Seventy four were in favour of that flag design.
The third design I suggested was a flag with three maple leaves. Two hundred people of my riding were in favour of the three maple leaf design.
As a last question, I suggested a flag with one maple leaf only. Only hundred and forty one of my electors were in favour of that design.
Mr. Speaker, in adding together those who were in favour of a flag design other than that submitted by the Prime Minister, we reach a total of 294, whereas those who chose the three maple leaf flag number only 200.
But at the beginning of June, I decided to make another poll. May I read the letter I sent to 1,751 citizens, in which I asked them to enlighten me on the choice of a Canadian flag. I said to them:
Dear Friend:
Once more, I take the liberty to ask your cooperation and I submit a few questions on the flag issue. I am sure you will rush your reply, and I wish to thank you in advance for your valuable assistance.
As you certainly know, the project of the Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, is to officially establish, as a Canadian flag, a flag composed of three maple leaves on one stem, and to decree that the union jack be flown as a symbol of Canadian membership in the commonwealth of nations and our allegiance to the crown.
He also intends to decree that "O Canada" be considered as the national anthem and ''God Save the Queen" as the royal anthem.
In practice, the adoption of Mr. Pearson's project would mean that we would have two flags and two national anthems. I would like to have your point of view on this question and I would ask
Canadian Flag
you to fill in the enclosed questionnaire and to return it to me as soon as possible.
Thanking you for your usual co-operation.
I remain.
Yours truly,
Theo. Ricard, M.P.
St. Hyacinthe-Bagot
The questionnaire included four questions, the first of which read as follows:
Are you in favour of two flags?
464 answered: No, while only 8 favoured two flags.
The second question was the following:
Are you in favour of only one flag?
490 constituents answered: Yes, while only 8 answered: No.
The third question was:
Do you feel that rather than to have two flags, it would be better to maintain what we have at present?
273 constituents gave their preference to the status quo, while 76 answered: No. The fourth question was the following:
Do you feel it would be preferable to have a referendum on that matter?
Mr. Speaker, it is worthy of notice that 216 replied in the affirmative and 155 in the negative.
Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the information I obtained following those two soundings of opinion I have taken the attitude that a referendum, a plebiscite or a popular consultation should be held on the flag issue. I feel I have carried out the mandate my constituents have given me not only on the flag issue but on all other questions of national interest.
Mr. Speaker, to give an idea of the interest shown by the Canadian people in the holding of a referendum, I should like to quote an article which appeared in the Oshawa Times
and which reads as follows:

"Taxes and jobs main topics for Canadians". I should like to read a few extracts from this article:
"If you were writing to your member of parliament in Ottawa about the things you think parliament should do, what would you suggest?"
A similar question was asked in the United States recently and what came to the top there was taxes, as well as the civil rights bill. Medicare was cited in third place but only 2 per cent of Canadians mentioned need for a good medical plan and for more hospitals.
We read among the things judged as most important by the people across Canada that taxes are what Canadians would like to see reduced first. Then comes unemployment; the

Canadian Flag
encouragement of more industry; and then, fourth, a revised unemployment insurance fund. Then finally what is interesting people and is in the minds of the people is the cost of living.

This goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that there are several measures to which the house could have given serious consideration before dealing with the flag issue.
To repeat what others have said before me, people are anxious to see that matter settled but, at the same time, they are aware that any hasty and irresponsible action could inflict wounds on our national unity which would take generations to heal.
Mr. Speaker, I was greatly amused to hear the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) and the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Frenette) suggest that a motion for closure be passed to put an end to this debate.
However, a few moments before making that suggestion, both members-I am sorry neither one is here at present-had made much of the fact that they were in favour of a distinctive national flag.
By suggesting the passage of a motion for closure, those two members actually recommended the adoption of the three leaf flag as the first national flag, and that the flag of a foreign country, that is, the union jack, be given an official status in the statutes of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, during their private conversation, my Liberal friends from the province of Quebec suggest that the second part of the resolution is merely a gilded pill to have a distinctive national flag adopted, and they claim that after a while, the second part of the resolution would be forgotten and the union jack would no longer be flown in our country.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I should like to dispute the validity of that suggestion of our friends opposite, because I do not believe that by decreeing and entering into Canada's statutes that a certain flag will be the official flag we will force people to forget another flag. You and I-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt the hon. member to remind him that the resolution he referred to is not under consideration at this time. By the same token, I take the liberty of reminding him that we are now considering the subamendment presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought I could follow in the footsteps of the previous speakers.
But, since you are responsible for maintaining order in the house, I have no choice but to accept your ruling, which I do willingly and with respect for the authority you represent in this chamber.
I would now like to give the views of some of our best editorial writers on the flag issue.
But before doing that, Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Rimouski (Mr. Ouellet), I would like to call on the good will of the members of the House of Commons to reach a final understanding on this burning question.
You will admit, Mr. Speaker, that we have now reached a decisive turn. I do not believe that this national flag issue can be settled without a compromise which would be acceptable by all the parties concerned.
I should like again to commend my colleagues from the other English speaking provinces for the dignity with which they tackled the problem. Each and all of them have risen in the house and expressed the views of their constituents. And they added that they were ready to accept a compromise. I think, Mr. Speaker, that they could not show better cooperation.
I should like to set out this courageous attitude as an example to my friends opposite, and particularly to those from the province of Quebec, so as to prompt them to stand up and to express their views on this matter. Really, I cannot see how they could feel free not to avail themselves of this opportunity to express their point of view as well as that of their constituents.
I pity them much more than I blame them for being bound in such a way by party discipline. Before resuming my seat, I should like to urge them once more to tell the House of Commons about the views of their fellow citizens.
It is important that they participate objectively in the discussion in the same way as we are now doing in an effort to solve this problem. It must not be forgotten that this is a problem that concerns them as much as us.
I am conscious that the official opposition has a very important role in this house. It must be recognized that we have fulfilled this responsibility to the best of our ability and that, in so doing, we have surely rendered the people a service, because if the official opposition had not drawn the attention of the house and of the Canadian people generally to this question of the flags, since the Prime Minister plans to have two, it could, I repeat,

Business of the House
have caused deep wounds to Canadian unity.
I will close my remarks by repeating that I favour a distinctive national flag and that we should all take steps to ensure that this problem is settled in the most agreeable and friendly way possible, in order that national unity, instead of being jeopardized, may be consolidated and this is the wish of all of us on this side of the house.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak on our loyalties, our unity and our heritage of the past. I want to bring to mind that over the years we have had a cross on our flag that goes back to the crucifixion, the cross that was put there by the English in honour of their patron saint, St. George, who was a Macedonian. The cross of St. Andrew was placed on the flag by the Scots in memory of their patron saint, St. Andrew, who was a Jew and a disciple of Christ. There is also the third cross, the cross of St. Patrick which was added at a later date. St. Patrick, of course, was a Scotsman who was educated in France and then became the patron saint of Ireland.
I also want to direct the attention of the house to the fact that over the years of early history England was invaded time after time by the Scandinavians and the same thing was also happening in Europe. The Scandinavians invaded Europe and established a province in the northern part of France called Normandy. These same Normans were very closely related to the Normans who had remained in England after the Scandinavian invasions prior to 1066.
Then William the Conqueror invaded England and defeated Harold at the battle of Hastings, in which Harold lost his life. It is also interesting to note that Harold's mother was a Scandinavian. Some people will say: Why go back into history? I see some members are smiling. I say to you that if you have no love for your traditions and are ashamed of your past there is something wrong with you and you have something you want to cover up. I for one do not want to cover up the history of Canada and I am going to relate it.
William the Conqueror invaded England and conquered that land. He pillaged and laid waste the land and for 100 miles there was neither a house nor a person left. He brought with him from France the Latin
touch not only in politics but in religion, and in the feudal system which he brought to England and established there. That was the last Scandinavian invasion of England, and I think this is an important part of history when we consider it was this man who stopped any further Scandinavian invasions.
As a matter of fact, he laid the cornerstone of the England we know today. He introduced the feudal system. He was a pretty smart man in a great many ways because he set up the barons and knights on the one side, and then had the English doing the work as serfs on the other. But he did not trust the barons and knights and he also appointed sheriffs. He had two bodies, one to watch over the barons and the knights and another whose members went around making secret investigations. He was a smart man.
I also wish to point out that it was from these same Normans that Magna Carta came. As a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, you will recognize that this is the cornerstone of democracy wherever it is found in the world. I say to all members and to the people of Canada generally, what a tradition we have got. William the Conqueror introduced the French language into England. It was used in court, it was used by the gentry and together with Latin it was used by the church. It was the language of politics and political science in that day, while English was the language of the serfs. The combination of those languages, Mr. Speaker, resulted in a common language, the English language of today, the greatest language in the world.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting house leader about the estimates that will be taken up on Friday, so that we will have adequate knowledge beforehand.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, on Friday we will consider the main estimates of the Department of Labour, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Barnett:: What about tomorrow?


John Watson MacNaught: We go on with the flag debate.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
7S05
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 3, 1964