1964-08-25

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Although I have not indicated to you, sir, or to anyone else the point of privilege which I wish to raise, I am sure it will be clear in a moment that it is a matter of concern to the entire house.
On August 12, entirely on my own, I addressed an open letter to the leaders of the parties in the House of Commons in which I suggested that consideration might be given to ways and means of arranging in the future to avoid unnecessarily protracted debate. My letter had nothing to do with the current debate on the flag. It looked only to the future, and it was based on the proposition of acting only by agreement amongst all parties.
I am happy to report, Mr. Speaker, that I have now had a reply by letter from each of the party leaders. One of the letters is marked "Personal" and I shall therefore not disclose its contents. Indeed, I shall not make public any of the letters unless I am authorized to do so. I feel I can say to the house, however, and I am sure the house will be happy to hear this, that there is a wide measure of agreement amongst the five party leaders in their replies. Some of the letters seemed to agree with what I set out in my letter, although all of them did not go that far. However, all the leaders are united in their desire to do everything they can to improve the procedures of this House of Commons.
In view of this, Mr. Speaker-and this is my point of privilege-I should like to suggest that there should be a meeting of the five party leaders with the members of the subcommittee on procedure, which is a subcommittee of Your Honour's committee on procedure and organization. I suggest that there be such a meeting, not for the purpose of discussing the current flag debate but rather for the purpose of looking to the
future to achieve what all the leaders have expressed, the desire to improve the procedures of this House of Commons.
I therefore wish to suggest that if within the next day or two the five leaders would indicate to me, as chairman of the subcommittee, their willingness to attend such a meeting I would call a meeting of that subcommittee for the purpose of extending an invitation to them. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that one should consider that this suggestion is being addressed to the party leaders, and a case could be made for their holding a meeting on their own, but I am sure members realize that this is a matter of concern to the House of Commons as a whole, and that it would be proper for such a meeting to be held by the subcommittee on procedure, to be attended by the five party leaders for the purpose of having this discussion. I should like to go one step further and suggest that at such a meeting, Your Honour might also be present. If you are willing to do so, you might also make your chambers or some other room available for the holding of such a meeting.
I hope consideration will be given to such a proposition, and I express to the house my pleasure at the replies I have received from the five party leaders.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I begin by asking Your Honour whether this is a question of privilege. It seems to me like a specious endeavour to raise a question of privilege and designate it as such when, in fact, it is not.
Then there was a reference to a personal letter. I was rather surprised that the hon. gentleman should have found that the best means of communicating his views was through the instrumentality of an open letter to the press. Be that as it may, it was most unusual. I thought it could have been raised in the house or through the ordinary means of communication by post. This procedure was not followed by the hon. gentleman.
He mentioned a personal letter. I think the one I wrote to him was personal, but I will be only too pleased to have it published. In so far as the suggested meeting is concerned, however, the committee has its

Inquiries of the Ministry representatives from the various parties. Let the committee on procedure continue its work. It has done very good work. Certainly to bring up such a matter in the manner in which the hon. gentleman has just brought this before the house does not indicate that degree of care that should characterize the handling of questions like this. If he had brought it to one's attention outside the house or through any other means of communication, it could be understood. I simply say that our desire has always been to expedite the business of the house within the limitation that we discharge our constitutional responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I immediately say to the hon. gentleman that having secured the publicity he apparently desired, I will be only too happy to have publication of my letter, which he can release immediately if he chooses.


Mr. Churchill:: For our guidance in the future will Your Honour declare whether this was a valid point of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is clear that one cannot determine whether a question is one of privilege until you hear what it is. Usually, to be effective, it seems to me a question of privilege should conclude with some sort of motion asking the house to do something, or asking that a decision be reached. There was no conclusion to this projected question of privilege, and in the circumstances I can only say it is quite unusual. I want to assure the house that the Chair, of course, knew nothing about this, but that is beside the point. Perhaps some useful service was rendered by the hon. member rising at this time, but may I suggest that we get on with our business.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A flagrant abuse of the rules; that is what it was.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and in fact in view of the situation there will be more than one question. It pertains to the purported arrival in Toronto last evening of George Hogan and Robert Ameln of San Francisco, who are

reported to have a record of strike violence in both San Francisco and St. Louis.
My first question is, have these men been appointed by Mr. Brown, head of the international typographical union, whose head office is in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to act as strike directors? My second question is, under what terms did they come into Canada? My third question is, does the minister intend to apply to them the same treatment accorded to some pressmen who were to assist in getting the newspapers on the streets and whom the newspapers were ordered to get rid of unless the men were prepared to become landed immigrants at once?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I will make an inquiry on that matter, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: While an inquiry is being made respecting this question would the minister advise-and this is within his personal knowledge-what directions were given recently to the three Toronto newspapers respecting certain employees who came from the United States? Did the minister direct the three metropolitan Toronto newspapers that they must either get rid of these men, or that the men would have to acquire landed immigrant status if they were to remain in Canada?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, no work
permit is delivered to a person entering Canada on a temporary visa and a person who visits our country without a visa must first seek authorization before starting to work; in other words he must obtain immigrant status or secure a work permit.
To my knowledge, at the time of the strike in Toronto about ten people entered Canada without having a work permit and immigration officials informed them that they could not work in this country without such a permit.


John George Diefenbaker: If, as the hon. member for Melville has said, two gentlemen have arrived under the description of strike directors, would they come within the ambit of the principles which the minister has just enunciated?


René Tremblay: As I said, anyone who comes to Canada has to get a permit to accept any contract or undertake any work here. I will make inquiries today to find out exactly what happened.



PUBLIC SERVICE PROTESTS RESPECTING RECENT SALARY INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask whether he has received any representations from the national unemployment insurance commission association protesting the recent pay increases as being inadequate in the opinion of its members?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No, but I will check to see whether any representations have come to my office which have not been drawn to my attention.


Michael Starr: Will the minister bring this matter before the government so that a review may be made which will give a more adequate increase in salary to these employees, who between 1963 and 1965 received an increase amounting to only 3.5 per cent as announced over the week end?


An hon. Member:: What did you do?


Michael Starr: I readjusted it.


An hon. Member:: Not in 1961.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to make any statement with regard to salary increases for federal civil servants in group B? Can we be told whether these increases were granted on the basis of recommendations by the salaries review committee or by the civil service commission, and whether they will be reviewed by treasury board?


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: The President of the Privy Council has a statement to make on this.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: On Friday last, as appears on page 7114 of Hansard, in response to a question from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and again yesterday, as reported on page 7168, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister promised to review with me the representations that have been received from the civil service organizations with respect to the recently announced group B salary revisions.
This is to report that we have reviewed this matter and, in doing so, have paid particular attention to the rates for grades 1 and 2 typists, clerks and stenographers in whose positions both hon. members expressed a special interest.
Inquiries of the Ministry
We are satisfied, after further examination of the problem and from the careful study which has been given to the whole range of group B salary rates by the ministers on the treasury board, that the rates which have been announced are fair and equitable, and place the government's salary levels on a basis which compares favourably with other employers in Canada. There are numerous comparisons which could be made, including comparisons based upon data derived from the pay research bureau surveys, to confirm what I have said. However, pay research bureau reports are confidential, and I am therefore obliged to make the following comparison on the basis of data available from public sources.
To illustrate my point, we have compared the rates now announced for typists, clerks and stenographers 1 and 2 with the rates in force under collective bargaining agreements between the Saskatchewan government employees association and the government of that province. In five of the six classes referred to the maximum rate now effective in the federal service is equal to or greater than the maximum provided under collective agreements in the Saskatchewan service.
I should also say a word, I think, with reference to the claim that large numbers of the employees in group B have not received a salary increase in four years. This is not in fact correct. The ranges of pay for typists, clerks and stenographers grade 1 all contain at least seven steps, and while rates of pay may remain unchanged for a period of time, employees entering these classes are entitled to semi-annual statutory increases of $90 a year until they reach the maximum. For group B as a whole the increase in the actual levels of pay over the two year period since the last review amounts to approximately 6.4 per cent and this latest increase in the rates of pay will add another 3.4 per cent to this increase, making an increase in the actual salary level of the order of about 10 per cent over the two year period.
As for the question asked by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue on Friday last as reported in Hansard on page 7114 regarding the position of the corresponding classes on the House of Commons staff, while I may point out that this matter is under the jurisdiction and responsibility of Your Honour perhaps I could have the indulgence of the house to say that prior to the question being asked last Friday, action had already been initiated to deal with the revision of the salary rates for this group. This is in

Inquiries of the Ministry accordance with the usual procedures tor reviewing the salary rates of the clerical, stenographic and other office classes of the House of Commons staff concurrently with the group B.
As I have indicated, since this matter is in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and while it is not perhaps entirely appropriate for me to say when the announcement of the revision will be made, may I be permitted to indicate that I expect it will be made very soon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister whether the increases which have been granted and are now approved are in accordance with the recommendations of the salaries review committee or the recommendations of the civil service commission?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, they are not in accordance with the recommendations of the civil service commission, but are based on the data provided by the pay research bureau.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. gentleman a question. With regard to the announcement the minister has made, which will be received with disappointment, I am sure, by civil servants in all parts of the country, does that represent a decision of treasury board, to whom this matter was submitted recently for consideration?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up part of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition when he used the word "paltry" the other day in relation to the increases and speaks about "disappointment" today I would point out that when his government dealt with this matter they did not grant any increases. However, Mr. Speaker, this represents a decision of treasury board which has now been confirmed by the full cabinet after consideration of the whole matter. I might add that this decision was taken after a good deal of time had been spent on the question.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I put a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In his absence it was replied to by the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs, who said that today he would give us an answer as to what action is contemplated with regard to increasing the allowances of those who qualify under the Veterans Allowance Act. Is it now possible

to have the answer that was promised yesterday?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question was brought to my attention just a few moments ago. I can say to the hon. gentleman that it is my hope to have a recommendation some time in the month of October. This is a hope; I trust I may realize it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister bring the house up to date on the situation in Viet Nam today, particularly as it relates to the state of the government, and also the situation centring around the truce supervisory commission and the part Canada has in it?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster gave me notice this morning of his intention to ask a question along similar lines. My response will take into account events that have occurred since his notice of question was received, which was of course prior to the question just put by my hon. friend.
A statement was issued in Saigon not very many minutes ago by the military revolutionary committee revoking the recent measures and announcing the proposed election of a new head of state and the convening of a national congress in Viet Nam. These events are of course too recent to warrant any comment. Canada does not have any diplomatic mission in South Viet Nam. Our contacts there are, of course, made as a member of the international control mission, of which we are a member, serving in both North and South Viet Nam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister whether he has had drawn to his attention the comments made on C.B.C. by Mr. Tom Gould, I think, reporting from Saigon, speaking of the dilapidated condition of the quarters of the Canadian representatives on the truce commission, the antiquated vehicle that is used, and the faded red ensign. I ask the minister whether any investigation has been made as to the accuracy of these

remarks and, if they are true, what steps he intends to take to rectify them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not heard the report of Mr. Tom Gould but I have seen the conditions myself under which the commission in Laos operates and can very well understand the situation. This only goes to show that Canadian diplomats abroad are prepared to do their duty under difficult circumstances.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have another supplementary question. Do the difficult circumstances necessitate unpainted buildings, 1929 vintage cars and filthy premises that are supposed to represent Canada in another country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity of reminding some of my colleagues of the difficulties under which we must operate in this department.


INDONESIA
[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 for External Affairs. In view of a report which appeared in last Saturday's issue of the Vancouver Sun, the heading of which reads as follows: "Go to hell, Canada," says Indonesian paper, with certain other observations in a similar vein, I am wondering whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs can accelerate his decision as to whether or not Canada should continue to hand out aid to Indonesia so she can thus save on foreign exchange and buy arms to attack Malaysia. In view of this particular observation in an Indonesian official paper I suggest to the secretary of state that they be told to go to the same location.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I may say to my hon. friend that if the direction reported in the paper was a correct representation of what was said, the hon. member need not think that the Canadian government has any intention of observing the direction. I want to add, however, that in the formulation of foreign policy both my hon. friend and I would be wise not to use stories that emanate from outside as a necessary base for the foundation of foreign policy.
Inquiries of the Ministry


CANADIAN MEMBERSHIP IN ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the speech he made in Banff a few days ago, could he tell the house whether there has been any change in the policy of the government as to its admission to the organization of American states, and whether Canada still intends to join this organization?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I shall table a copy of my speech. There is no change in our policy, but I took the opportunity to explain our views in detail and to state our reasons.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answer, and in view of the fact that he said it was Canada's ultimate destiny to join that organization, I was just wondering whether his speech meant just nothing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend would know more about that kind of thing than I, but I can assure my hon. friend that if he reads the text he will find that it was a contribution from which even he might derive some benefit.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Having read the text of the minister's speech I should like to ask him, in view of the fact that two South American countries have been compelled reluctantly to impose economic sanctions on Cuba as the result of an O.A.S. resolution, does the minister propose that Canada shall now be reduced to the same status?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any countries have been compelled to take the course which my hon. friend mentions. However, while he has read my speech, perhaps if he were to reread it he might find that the question was not really necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman suggests reading the speech twice, and I have been privileged to endeavour to interpret it too. Does that mean it was couched

Inquiries of the Ministry in such uncertainty it was meant not to be understood by anyone, including the hon. gentleman?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend is in such a frame of mind that I hope he will not mind my saying, if I told the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to read my speech twice, it is apparent that the right hon. gentleman should read it three times.


VISIT TO RUSSIA BY CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARIANS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Having in mind the announcement today of the forthcoming visit of a group of distinguished parliamentarians to the Soviet union, I was wondering whether the Canadian government would consider extending a similar invitation to Russian politicians at the appropriate time to visit this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The invitation in question was issued to the Speaker of parliament. I think the question of a return visit should be considered by them on behalf of parliament.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister state if he will recommend a recess of this house in order to permit the Speaker and other members of the delegation to attend?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; but I think consideration should be given to the possibility of postponing the visit, in view of the fact that the house will be in session next week.


Michael Starr: And the week after.


EXTENSION OF POWERS OF UN FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any extension has been now provided in respect of additional powers for the United Nations force on Cyprus, and in particular whether the Canadian members of that force have received instructions that arms may be used when considered necessary by the officer commanding.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, under the directives, which of course are those between the United Nations and the United Nations


commander of the Cyprus force, there will be no difficulty in the kind of situation to which my right hon. friend has just referred. With regard to the other aspect of the question, as I pointed out last week, as a result of the negotiations between General Thimayya and the government of Cyprus there have been some improvements in the position of the force and its authority.


John George Diefenbaker: But the question is, have directions been given by the United Nations organization to the United Nations force in Cyprus that arms may now be used when, in the opinion of the commander, it is deemed necessary and appropriate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. This is not a new situation.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to reply further to a question I posed to him some days ago in reference to the report and recommendations of Professor T. Wilson of the University of Glasgow, and a subsequent press release by Premier Stanfield concerning industrial incentives in the Atlantic provinces?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can embark upon a debate in respect of that very interesting report, but I can suggest that when the estimates of the Atlantic development board are before the committee we should have some discussion on it. As I understand it, Mr. Stanfield merely produced a submission he had made months before to the Atlantic development board coincident with this document, and there was nothing novel, therefore, in what he said at that time. The board, of course, for a long time has been giving consideration to the representations of the government of Nova Scotia, and there have been discussions going on with the officials of the board, Industrial Estates and ministers in the Nova Scotia government.


Robert Muir: I have a supplementary question. I realize the board is giving consideration, but what we want, of course, is action. May I ask the minister whether he is suggesting that the premier of that province is absolutely incorrect in what he said in his press release?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the quickest way for the government of Nova Scotia to get action would be to put some concrete proposals before the Atlantic development board.



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the captain and crew of the long liner Cheryl Anne recently found it necessary to ask for aid from the ocean going tug Slavnij of the Russian fishing fleet, when assistance was denied their disabled craft in a 60 mile gale on Georges bank by the transport ship Thomas Carleton, will the Minister of Transport inform the house the reason for this disgraceful action by a government ship on the high seas, and will he also tell the house the exact nature of the duties presently assigned to the Canadian coastguard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think that would also necessitate a rather prolonged debate. However, as a result of the particular incident to which the hon. gentleman referred, which I do not really think should be properly called disgraceful although perhaps there may have been an error in judgment in this matter, I have suggested that there should be a very careful review of the work of the coastguard, particularly in respect of fishing vessels.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister give consideration to providing aid to all small ships owned by fishermen when they are in distress, and I refer to aid that may be provided by the present coastguard? Will the minister give this some consideration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will give a good deal of consideration to enlarging the duties beyond those prescribed by the government the hon. gentleman was supporting.



RECRUITMENT OF STAFF FOR TRAINING COLLEGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion Souih):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister report any progress in the recruiting of qualified staff for the coastguard training college in Sydney?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I did not catch what kind of staff the hon. gentleman mentioned.


Malcolm MacInnis: Qualified teaching or training staff, which the minister indicated was holding up the progress in starting the school.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Progress in starting the school is not being delayed at all. We are making very good progress, and some staff is already being recruited. I have no doubt that by the time we hope to be taking pupils in this school, which would be in the autumn of next year, it will be quite ready for them.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
It is based on a report published in La Terre de Chez Nous to the effect that the federal government is preparing a bill to grant loans to some farmers who would like to get together to buy particularly costly equipment.
Could the Minister of Agriculture tell us if he intends to introduce such a bill this session?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should hope we could get at this legislation as soon as possible.



PURCHASE BY RUSSIA OF CANADIAN LIVESTOCK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house whether the Russian agricultural delegation now touring Canada are very much impressed with what they have seen so far, and whether they have shown any interest in the purchase of livestock, particularly bulls?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the Russian minister with regard to what he thought of Saskatchewan, but I can assure the hon. member that he is interested in bulls. The Russians are interested enough in our livestock that on the 26th of this month there will be a shipment from Montreal of 600

Inquiries of the Ministry Hereford bulls along with 65 Lacombe hogs, which were developed in Canada, and three Holstein cows.



ALBERTA-CANCELLATION OF CONTRACTS WITH MILK PROCESSING PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and I am asking it also on behalf of the hon. member for Wetas-kiwin and the hon. member for Acadia whose constituencies are affected as well. Has the minister received a petition from 124 farmers in the Bashaw area concerning the cutting off of their contract with the Carnation milk plant in Wetaskiwin, and what action has he taken?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a petition from 124 farmers, although I have received communications from some of the people affected by the closing of this plant. In this regard the federal government does not have any authority over milk plants with regard to their sources of supply or the arrangements they make with those shipping milk to their plants. The federal government does, however, stand ready under the Agricultural Stabilization Act to support all butter produced through a purchase program at 53 cents per pound plus a supplementary payment of 13.3 cents per pound of butterfat to eligible shippers. Thus, while certain farmers have lost access to the concentrated milk plant, an alternative method of merchandising their product is available to them. We would hope that these plants would diversify their operations so they could take care of problems when they arise as they have in this particular area.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister look into the possibility of finding a further market for the condensed milk that this plant produces? I think that is where the trouble lies.


Harry William Hays: Yes. We are familiar with the situation and, as I have just mentioned, we feel that some of the plants in these areas should be more diversified along the lines of the production of powdered milk, butter and so on, so they could be supported under the stabilization program.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: What about buying the milk for school children?



PROTESTS RESPECTING FEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. Since he announced a subsidy for the transport of feed grain in eastern Canada, can he tell the house whether he has received protests from officials of the Quebec Catholic farmers' union? Can he tell us also about his recent interview with the representatives of that association, more especially on Friday last according to press reports?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I fail to see the immediate urgency of this question. Surely it is a question for the order paper.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, since this is a very urgent question which interests farmers in eastern Canada, I ask that it be taken up at 10.30 tonight.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: have a supplementary question to the one which you ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker, and I have a submission to make about its urgency. The policy is to take effect on the 31st of this month and I want to ask the minister if before August 31 he can announce any change in the interim policy on feed grain subsidies.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Last Friday I received a delegation from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Representations have been received, and we are now studying these. We will advise the house in due course.



TURKEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has a reply to the question I directed to him a week ago Monday in connection with the death of turkeys.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie concerning the cause of death of some 10,000 turkey poults in a flock in Saskatchewan, I am advised that laboratory and

field investigations conducted by veterinarians of the college of veterinary medicine of the University of Saskatchewan indicate no evidence of an infectious or contagious disease. The field investigations indicated that improper feeding was likely the cause of the mortality, and this diagnosis was supported by the fact that birds removed to the university made a complete recovery when fed a balanced ration.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Could the minister tell the house whether the government intends to study and carry out the project of building a causeway between Labrador and Newfoundland whereby that province could be connected by means of the trans-Canada highway? Railroads and power lines could be built and the climate could also be improved in the gulf of St. Lawrence, St. Lawrence river and Saguenay areas, and all that for less than what the St. Lawrence seaway cost.


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



P.E.I. CAUSEWAY-SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION UNDER PRIVATE SPONSORSHIP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent proposal by the consulting engineering firm of A. D. Marginson and Associates for the construction of the Northumberland strait causeway to connect Prince Edward Island to the mainland, to be financed by Canadian funds under private sponsorship, can the minister inform the house of the government's reply or attitude to this vital proposal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I may say that beyond an acknowledgement of receipt of the proposal there has been no reply.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: As a supplementary question, will the Minister of Transport be prepared to make a statement in the
Inquiries of the Ministry house outlining the government's position when he does give a more extended reply to this proposal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think this is a proper matter to be referred to in the house at that time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will remember that on May 25 in response to a question he invited all members who wished to do so to participate in the flag debate, and my question is related to this invitation.
In view of the fact that most members appear to have accepted this invitation, resulting in no foreseeable end to the debate, and in view of the fact that the Liberals and Conservatives have adopted positions that at the moment are totally irreconcilable, which will result in an even longer debate, would the Prime Minister consider having the flag debate for only two days a week for the balance of the session and letting the house deal with such other items as the Canada pension plan, so there could still be full discussion on the flag without neglecting all the other vital matters that should be receiving our immediate attention?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I still think we should proceed along the course already indicated, and I do not like to think that there is total irreconcilability between positions.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General as the minister who reports to the house for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Yesterday afternoon in his absence I directed a question to the Prime Minister relative to the position of the veterans in the Fraserview project at Vancouver Is the minister now in a position to give the house any information with regard to a review of the situation which these hundreds of veterans and widows face, having in mind the fact that within a few days they will be con-

Inquiries of the Ministry fronted with having to pay increased rents, or buying their homes, or being evicted?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the suggestion that something is to happen within a few days, I would point out that the actual date involved is October 1. I might also say I am informed by officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the tenants of the corporations's Fraserview veterans project were notified on July 3 of this year that rents would be increased effective October 1. The increases range from $3.50 to $11 per month.
The increases in rental charges were implemented after very careful study and consideration by the corporation which extended over a period of several months. In this study the corporation had the assistance of consultants who were retained on instructions of my predecessor, Hon. Jack Garland. The increases which have been approved by the corporation's board of directors are sufficient only to eliminate the deficit in the operation of the Fraserview project. I might add that over the past two or three years there has been a serious question whether, and the extent to which, these rates should be raised. The increased rates are considered to be fair and reasonable to both the tenants and to the corporation, and they are considerably below the rental market in Vancouver as established by the study by the independent consultants.
Early in July I answered a similar question asked by the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway. At that time I thought it would be wrong to raise the hopes of the tenants, and after most careful consideration and discussion with the officials I do not think it is advisable to reconsider this matter at this time. I think it should be terminated now. It would only raise false hopes if we did anything else.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not correct that although the date is October 1 the tenants have been told they must make a decision either to buy or pay increased rent by the 14th of September? I have one of the notices in my possession, and they must answer by the middle of September. This matter concerns a housing project built for veterans and not for profit. Will the minister recommend the postponement for another month or two of the date by which these veterans must make a decision, so the matter can be reconsidered not only by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but by the veterans themselves?


Will the minister recommend postponing the deadline for another month?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, briefly the answer to that question is no. I might say that I personally saw the officials of this organization as far back as May and discussed the matter with them at some length. I then referred it to a special meeting of the board with my own comments on the subject. This matter has come up several times over the past two years, and I think it is time we put an end to it rather than raise false hopes.


Mr. G. L. Chatterfon (Esquimali-Saanich):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister reviewed the situation did he take into account the written promises made to these people by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources before the last election?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: We have made the decision that we think is right and proper under the circumstances. While I am on my feet-is there a further supplementary?


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question. I believe it is a correct question for the House of Commons, when we are now told that a certain decision has been reached by the minister which is completely at variance with a written promise made by the minister of northern affairs. If we are now told that there is a differentiation between what the government has decided and the written commitment of the minister of northern affairs, then surely that is something about which we should ask in this House of Commons.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I say there was no promise made by the minister of northern affairs. This was a statement, I believe, that was made by a political candidate in the course of an election campaign some years ago. It was not made by a responsible minister of the crown.


George Louis Chatterton: Can the minister say whether this candidate to whom he referred was the minister of northern affairs? Does the fact that he has become a minister relieve him of responsibility?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: All I said was that at the time the statement was made, in 1962, unless it was made by a member of the government of the hon. gentleman sitting opposite, it was not made by a member of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the most outrageous proposition that I have ever heard advanced. Does

the minister say a statement made by the man who today occupies the position of minister of northern affairs is irresponsible because he was not the minister then?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I never made or suggested any such statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I just ask the minister,
then, to whom he was referring when he spoke of this irresponsible statement.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With all due respect, I did not say that. I said it was not made by a responsible member of the government, because it was made at a time when the right hon. gentleman headed the government of this country. It was not made by a member of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: I will simply ask this question. Is the statement to which the minister refers a statement made by the person who today is minister of northern affairs?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have not got the statement before me, but if it is the statement that I think it is, it was made before he was a minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Actually, Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the minister to whom reference was made, the statement was made before he was even a member of the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say that statements made by candidates are not to be regarded as responsible unless they are ministers when they make them?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The answer is emphatically no, but I say there is a difference between a private person campaigning as a member of the opposition party trying to get elected, and a member of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lake St. John.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; it does seem to me we have had a long discussion on this matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: just wanted to ask the minister a simple question. I have not participated in the discussion. I should like to ask whether being sworn in as a member of the cabinet relieves a member of all the previous commitments he has made.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In answer to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, what I said was that when a man speaks as a member of the government he speaks on behalf of the government. When a man speaks during the course of an election campaign about what he will try to do, that is another matter and different from speaking as a member of the government.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General as minister answerable for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. What is the real reason for the approximately 18 per cent increase in the rents for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation houses in the Fraserview veterans housing area? Is the real reason that stated by Arthur Laing in public-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: -to force sales of the houses?


John George Diefenbaker: When did he say that?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of this particular statement. If the hon. gentleman would put his question on the order paper I would be glad to answer it.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I will send you a copy.


George Louis Chatterton: As a supplementary question, may I ask the minister whether the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has made representations on behalf of the Fraserview tenants, since he became a member of the ministry?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Having regard to the oath I took as a privy councillor I cannot very well answer that question, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: May I deal now with a question that was asked yesterday by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. He asked whether a new stamp bearing the inscription "Free Quebec" had been issued by the Post Office Department. The question was put to my parliamentary secretary. There is absolutely no truth in any such suggestion. I might say I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for having brought this to my attention, since it may

Inquiries of the Ministry have been overlooked by the department; because I believe an investigation is warranted to ascertain whether there has been a recent infraction of the Post Office Act.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he tell us whether storage of nuclear arms in Canada was discussed at the Canada-United States conference held recently in Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia? Can he tell us also whether there has been any change in the policy of the department on national defence in connection with the storage of nuclear arms in this country?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, there has been no change, Mr. Speaker. The policy was very clearly set out in the white paper on defence that was tabled in March.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I have in my hand a notice for a public hearing of the board of broadcast governors to be held in Halifax on September 4. At this hearing applications from radio stations in Winnipeg, Edmonton and Prince Rupert, B.C., are to be heard. I am wondering what possible justification there could be for having the representatives of these stations travel to the Atlantic seaboard for the hearing of these applications.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member would just glance again at that notice he would find it is supplementary to a much longer notice. One application to be considered at the hearing is a very important application from a T.V. station in Halifax.


Siegfried John Enns: I was wondering if this was a clever device by an alert minister to have the Canadian National deficit decreased by forcing these people to travel this distance on the Canadian National?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not responsible for the board of broadcast governors, sir.



INQUIRY AS TO HOLDING OF BY-ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of a report in today's edition of Toronto's leading morning newspaper to the effect that by-elections in Westmorland and Waterloo South will be held on November 16. Has the government reached a decision that these by-elections will be held on November 16, or on some other date, and if so will the Prime Minister inform the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not reached our decision, although apparently the newspaper has.


Mr. Bell:: Is the newspaper report incorrect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I could not comment on a speculative report.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance but I believe it can also be directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a resolution from the Canadian pharmaceutical association, as a result of its recent meeting in Halifax, asking for the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on drugs? If so, would he give consideration to this request?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall have to look into that, Mr. Speaker. It is my impression that I have received a telegram from that organization on this subject, but I will check.



WORLD BANK PROFITS FOR LOANS TO UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr
Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister inform the house what is the attitude of the government in regard to a plan for the world bank to use its profits to provide interest free loans

for educational and agricultural projects in underdeveloped countries?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the absence of the Minister of Finance I shall bring this question to his attention.



BAY OF FUNDY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer very briefly three questions asked when I happened to be out of the house yesterday. The hon. member for Cumberland asked the Prime Minister a question about the Atlantic development board immediately initiating an economic investigation of the harnessing of the bay of Fundy tides for electric power.
The board is giving consideration to this and other related proposed power developments in the Atlantic provinces, and as the Prime Minister, I thought very properly, pointed out in reply to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, it is very desirable that these matters should not be considered in isolation from one another.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke asked a question about a possible lease to Coal Harbour Investments Limited by the national harbours board. There is no lease, and there will be no lease unless the project is approved by the city of Vancouver.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, notwithstanding a request I made to him as I went out of the building that he should not ask me any questions, chose to ask me an urgent question about escalators at the airport at Winnipeg. This matter is under consideration in relation to the possibility of a different method of conveying passengers to the planes, 20220-4574
Inquiries of the Ministry and until that matter has been resolved it would be perhaps unwise to go on with the installation of escalators.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I thank the minister for answering the question. I am sure he realizes that in effect I was giving him notice so he could answer the question when he got back.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With regard to the hon. gentleman giving me notice I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that that great exponent of the rules did not put the question on the order paper, as other hon. members do.


Thomas Miller Bell: Slapped down twice in one day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That proves something but I don't know what.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for Labelle asked me why the province of Quebec was not represented by its official flag at the garden of the provinces.
I must tell him that at this time the national capital commission is flying at the garden of the provinces the banners bearing the provinces' coat of arms rather than their flags because most of them have not yet adopted an official provincial flag. I think that only four of them have done so.



ESTABLISHMENT OF PRICES FOR WHEAT AND COARSE GRAINS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence possibly the Minister of Agriculture could answer it. How soon can the Canadian wheat board release the purchase prices for wheat and coarse grains to the elevator agents, so that farmers with grain in storage since the beginning of the crop year might be paid?
Hon. Harry V/. Hays (Minister of Agriculture): I shall be glad to bring this question to the attention of the minister.

Canadian Flag LABOUR CONDITIONS



REPORTED INTENTION TO REDUCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: tTranslation]
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from a statement made to the press by Mr. Claude Jourdain, president of the economic development regional council of the Gaspe peninsula and Magdalen islands.
In his statement, published in the newspaper Montreal Matin of August 25, Mr. Jourdain suggested the abolishment of unemployment insurance benefits:
Instead of paying benefits to the unemployed, they should be forced to work.
My question is directed to the Minister of Forestry since he is responsible for the administration of ARDA.
Does he agree with Mr. Jourdain's statement when he says that unemployment insurance benefits should be abolished in order to put the people of the Gaspe peninsula to work under ARDA?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I did not read that press report, and I would like to do so before making a statement on this matter.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, August 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. More.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, to continue my talk on a Canadian flag, and trying to put forward the views of my constituents and what the Canadian people feel about this debate, I said last evening that I am sure most people in Canada think we should get on to something other than the flag.
As grown people we should realize the extent to which this issue is controversial. Perhaps it should be taken out of the realm

of politics and placed in the hands of a committee comprising representatives of all parties, where a solution might be found. If no agreement on a flag design can be reached there, perhaps the committee could agree on four questions to be asked in the course of a referendum, questions similar to those set out in the subamendment with, possibly, a few more added. The Prime Minister has indicated that he is prepared to submit this matter to a committee as long as a time limit is placed on its deliberations as well as on the debates in this house when the question is brought back to the Commons. This seems to be a further indication of his intention to use his authority to force Canadians to accept his three maple leaf design.
I think there is no necessity for a time limit to be placed on the work of the committee. Surely such a committee should be given all the time it needs in order to reach a conclusion. My own belief is that such a committee could reach agreement. After all, the committee set up in 1945 was virtually unanimous in the conclusion it reached. I think another committee could reach a similar measure of agreement provided no time limit were placed on its work, and if its members began their task with a real intention to do something about this controversial question which has upset the nation so much, even if compromises were necessary in order to achieve this purpose.
Perhaps the first question which should be placed on any plebiscite is, do Canadians really want a new flag? This is a question I have encountered from time to time, and it is a question I have often asked myself. If it were put to a plebiscite, this house would know the feeling of Canadians generally in this regard. If the answers showed that Canadians do want a new flag, then we could set ourselves to work in an effort to evolve, or find, that new flag, one which would be satisfactory to the majority of the people and which would unite our country rather than divide it.
Everything has its good points, even this flag debate. The debate has made Canadians more aware of the Canadian flag, more aware of the red ensign than ever before. A few months ago I was shocked at the number of Canadians who were asking what is on the red ensign, and what does it mean, anyway?
I think this unawareness stems from the lack of teaching in schools across Canada, particularly on the subject of Canadian history. Canadians are more ignorant about Canadian history than they are about the

history of the United States or Britain. One could ask any number of school children about the war of 1812, and I imagine that not more than one out of 100 could say very much about it. I think ignorance of the red ensign, the Canadian flag, stems from the fact that very little Canadian history is taught in our schools across Canada. If better instruction were given we should all be very much more aware of the history of the red ensign, because this flag certainly has close links with Canada's past.
In 1945, under the order in council passed on September 5, the government of that day set out clearly that the red ensign, as modified, was Canada's distinctive flag to be used wherever a distinctive flag for Canada might be needed. This was generally accepted at the time. The question which arises in my mind is, why this sudden need for a reappraisal of the whole flag question in 1964? The Prime Minister suggested, in a television talk I believe, that it came about because he had promised a new flag. Well, the Minister of Transport at one time promised two flags and, indeed, three flags for Canada.
We all want to see a united Canada. We want to see one flag for all Canada; this is the only way in which Canada will remain united. To return to this question of the need for a reappraisal of the flag situation in 1964, the Prime Minister, it is said, promised a new flag for 1965.


An hon. Member:: He promised other things, too.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He promised a lot of other things, too. A promise was made about milk, and we discussed that promise this afternoon. The Minister of Agriculture told all Canadians we would have a school milk program. Now we have a surplus of milk in Alberta and he says he cannot touch the problem. Another promise which we in western Canada remember very well is the promise with regard to $2 wheat. We have not seen it and we are unlikely to see it fulfilled by 1965 or even by 1968. We could talk about the time the minister of northern affairs made a number of promises. That was before he became a member of the cabinet. This promise about the flag could be regarded in the same light. It was made before the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) became Prime Minister.
People can only form their opinions in the light of their own knowledge, I suppose, but I do know that the new flag was never waved about in western Canada in 1963. It was never proclaimed that this promise was one
Canadian Flag
the Liberals intended to keep. It was certainly not proclaimed as loudly or as often as the promise about $2 wheat. As a matter of fact, in my constituency I heard no talk whatsoever about the introduction of a new flag; neither did anything on this subject appear in the weekly newspapers. The hon. member for York-Humber made this position very clear when he spoke yesterday. He told us the flag was not promised in Toronto.
So where was it promised, and for what purpose? I do not wish to contribute to any division which already exists in this country, but we know that the promise of a new flag served the Prime Minister well. Why did he bring it before this parliament? It was not mentioned in the speech from the throne. I suggest the Prime Minister brought it forward because he had very little other legislation ready. He is using this flag debate as a filler. He tells us "Pass the flag resolution and we will give you a recess". This will give them more time to prepare their pension legislation, more time to discuss things of that nature with the provinces. The Prime Minister has promised the house many things; in particular, a recess if we accept this flag. I said yesterday that I am proud to be a member of a party that puts duty before holidays.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Prime Minister has clearly brought Canada's flag into the political arena. For what purpose, he knows best; but I think it should certainly be taken out of the political arena, because we want Canadians all across this country to accept the flag once it is chosen. We are well able to gather that the flag at present proposed by the Prime Minister is not acceptable to many Canadians. Therefore it must be referred to a standing committee which can study the whole subject at great length.
I noticed an editorial in the Quebec Chronicle of August 8 which I think is very significant to this particular debate. It says in part:
For reasons he knows best, Mr. Pearson has made a political issue of the flag: and he could not have picked on a worse time. Introduced in rather authoritarian fashion in the house, with no popular consultation and in the teeth of fierce opposition from a large section of the public, the flag question, far from settling anything, has only stirred unnecessary controversy and a great deal of recrimination.
Mr. Pearson surely knew (there were plenty of public statements which pointed to it) that any flag, as long as it did not contain references to the histories of either of the two founding nations, would be acceptable to the French Canadians. Why then did he not consult the people

Canadian Flag
on a design which would have been universally acceptable? One Liberal answer to this is that it would not have been practical.
I think that is a very weak answer indeed. This editorial goes on to say:
But this is utter nonsense. All legislation is, in fact, based on the principle of popular consultation. Why else do we go through the enormously costly motions of electing a new government every four years? Why else do we give our M.P.'s the right to speak for us?
It goes on to deal at great length with some of the problems this flag has run into because of the time at which the Prime Minister chose to present it to parliament. I will not read the rest of this editorial, Mr. Speaker, but I believe it deals with the question very well. It states that the Prime Minister has brought this flag into the political arena at the worst possible time, when the country is divided enough, without adding to the problem. Certainly it has already been proven that this flag issue is adding to that division.
In looking at the four questions contained in the subamendment one notices that the first question suggested by the hon. member for Regina City is "Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign?" I think I should point out that in going back over the history of the red ensign we find it was flown by the Hudson's Bay Company. This trading company was more or less the founder of western Canada, particularly, and most of eastern Canada. They used the red ensign as their flag and the flag of Canada. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that this company were perhaps more than just a trading company. They were the government of the day; they had powers far more sweeping than many governments; they could arm ships, punish offenders, enforce laws, and so on. In fact they controlled the whole area that is now western Canada; and at that time, away back in the early 1800's, the Hudson's Bay Company used the red ensign as their flag.
Coming to a later period, in 1841 northern Manitoba used this flag. It flew over Fort Garry at the junction of the Red and Assini-boine rivers. Hon. members have referred to the fact that in 1904 and 1905 the red ensign was flown as the flag of Canada. In 1922 an order in council was passed authorizing the use of the new Canadian coat of arms on the fly of the red ensign.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I understand the hon. member said the Hudson's Bay Company had used- I forget the date-the red ensign as its flag.

Has the Hudson's Bay Company, however, changed that practice? Do they still not use it as their flag?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Being a very loyal company, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that perhaps they do. In 1924 a government order in council authorized the use of the red ensign on all Canadian government buildings in foreign countries. In 1934 the Bennett government declared the red ensign to be our national colours. During the second world war the King government chose the red ensign as the flag for the commander of the Canadian army overseas. Mackenzie King has often been quoted in this house, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I may be allowed to quote him once more with regard to the Canadian flag. Mr. King said this:
The red ensign, with the Canadian coat of arms in the fly has, for over 70 years been very generally used in situations where a flag specially distinctive of Canada was essential. It was first authorized by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald shortly after confederation for use on Canadian merchant vessels. It has been popularly accepted as a flag distinctive of Canada.
Certainly the red ensign flew over the houses of commons of Upper and Lower Canada at the time of confederation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if one looks back over Canadian history one can see that as history unfolded the red ensign was there. This parliament has defended the flag many times. During one attack back in 1949 Mr. King said this:
Canadians have fought and died under this flag. The red ensign should be good enough for anyone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Every prospective immigrant is informed what our flag is by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. They are advised that the flag used as distinctive of Canada is properly described as the Canadian red ensign, with the shield of the coat of arms in the fly. This should point out to most members that the red ensign has very strong claims indeed to being called Canada's distinctive flag, and certainly the first question submitted by the hon. member for Regina City has a right to that place.
In view of the great deal of controversy over the flag question the hon. member has referred to a modified form of the red ensign in question No. 2, perhaps one which would set out more clearly the two founding races of this great country of ours. Certainly this has merit, because if it can bring greater unity to this divided country in which we now

find ourselves, it will be very worth while. Anything that can bring greater unity to this country should be seriously considered. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would wholeheartedly support the second question, if such a flag were favoured by most Canadians as the result of a plebiscite being held.
The third question contained in the hon. member's subamendment is, "Are you in favour of a three maple leaf design?" One wonders why one should be in favour of such a design. Naturally, being an agriculturist, when the suggested Pearson pennant was brought forward I looked at the maple trees in Ontario and even those in Quebec to see if three maple leaves grew naturally, as suggested by the Pearson pennant or the Pearson flag, as it is now called. I failed to find any resemblance whatsoever. I immediately wondered, why three; why not five? It seemed to me maple leaves grew in clusters of five more frequently than in any other number; I never found them growing in threes. Why not one maple leaf, as has been suggested by the New Democratic party? Certainly the timing of this flag resolution has been poor; the advance notice on behalf of the government has been poor, and the authoritative manner in which the government has presented its three maple leaf design has been poor.
I could not help noticing an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of August 22 from Southam news services, written by that noted reporter Charles Lynch. Mr. Lynch states in this article:
To me, Mr. Pearson's decisiveness introducing 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.
But in the next breath he trotted out the union jack, to be endorsed for Canadians as our symbol of Queen and commonwealth. This preposterous proposal started the erosion of his position, arrested only momentarily by the action of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton who broke the leaves and the jack into two separate resolutions.
In the subsequent confusion, the Prime Minister seemed to be saying that he would stake the life of his government on adoption of the union jack, in its Queen and commonwealth context.
Now he has made it clear that he isn't staking the life of his government on any flag-leaves, jacks, or what have you.
And instead of fighting valiantly for the three leaf flag that he unveiled so dramatically last spring, he's saying that he'll agree to referral of the flag matter to a parliamentary committee, provided a time limit is set both on the committee's work and on the subsequent debate in parliament on whatever the committee recommends.
Canadian Flag
This seems to me to be a considerable retreat from his previous position of solid support for the three leaf flag.
And if the Prime Minister is retreating from the three leaf flag, the three leaf flag would appear to have little chance of ever being run up the parliamentary flagpole.
Mr. Lynch then says:
What weakened Mr. Pearson's position?
Mr. Lynch then suggests reasons for this weakened position. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will bear with me while I read another portion of this article. Mr. Lynch states:
One factor has been his own unwillingness, and that of his Liberal colleagues, to stump the country in support of the three leaf flag.
In other words he is suggesting there is some dissension among Liberal backbenchers, and Mr. Pearson is just a little bit confused as to whether he would have the support of his party after the members got out on the election hustings, away from parliament and out from under his thumb. He is suggesting that perhaps these backbenchers when fighting in their own ridings would not be proud to fly the three maple leaf flag, and it would not receive the unanimous endorsation that Mr. Pearson thought it might.
Mr. Lynch then states in the last paragraph of this article under the heading "The Red Ensign is Now Stronger Than Ever":
If not above the battle, it at least flew over the battlefield-
He was referring to the House of Commons.
-and its position seems considerably stronger at summer's end than it was at the beginning.
Mr. Pearson is ready to throw the design of a a new flag back into committee-a far cry from hopes that it would be flying by July 1, or for the royal visit in October.
Mr. Lynch is suggesting that the government is going to withdraw its flag and refer it to a committee in the hope that the committee can bring the government out of its state of confusion, and out of this hopeless situation it has brought parliament to, without losing too much face. Mr. Lynch then commends to opposition party for standing up for what it thought was right, in an effective debate in respect of this flag issue.
Certainly I should like to see this flag issue resolved. I know my constituents would like to see this house get on with the more urgent business of parliament, including the pension legislation, legislation in respect of the railways, which is of great concern to western Canada, legislation in respect of the Hall report, also of vital concern to Canadians, to say nothing of the legislation promised by the Minister of Agriculture six or seven

Canadian Flag
months ago, which he said will revolutionize agriculture in Canada it only the opposition will allow him to bring it in. I am sure we are all agreeable to allowing him to bring in this legislation. I invite him to do so, and we will deal with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allowed him has expired.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the subamendment now before this house, because I feel that for several reasons I am in almost a unique position.
Those of us who live in the Northwest Territories have real difficulty in masking our incredulity and containing our amusement at the prospect of you sophisticated southerners trying to suffocate each other with an issue which on the surface at least has little real significance to us in the north. It is perhaps this very sort of thing that motivates some Canadians to move into the Northwest Territories, where there is enough work to do each day to keep their minds off these interesting but hardly productive problems.
For my own part, I do not have any mandate from my constituents on this particular issue. I believe I have received altogether four letters in the past year, three of them asking that the red ensign be retained and one asking that the new flag be a single maple leaf design. In fact only one person suggested anything, should there be a necessity to change the flag and after all, 10,000 of my constituents live in the Canadian barren lands.
I should like to ask you this question, Mr. Speaker. Have you ever tried to explain three maple leaves to an Eskimo who has never seen a tree? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, would you like to fight an election about a flag, going to voters who have no access to flagpoles? What in God's name, we in the territories ask, is all this about? Who decided that now was the time to proceed with this issue? The people of the north on my recent visit continually asked me, what is going on? I could only tell them that our Prime Minister has chosen a design for a new flag and has said that until it is accepted the other business of parliament must remain on the shelf. I have told them that, if he chose, the Prime Minister could bring forward other pieces of legislation that are of direct concern to them, such as the pension plan, legislation in respect of the Hall commission report, and even legislation, which is

long overdue in the Northwest Territories, giving the people of the north the right to vote in territorial elections. But in the eyes of the Prime Minister the right to vote takes second place to three maple leaves waving proudly over their heads on metal flagpoles.
What else can I say to answer the question of what is happening in this place, when asked by people who need schools, roads, hospitals and jobs to give them even half a chance to raise their families in health and decency? This prime ministerial preoccupation with a new flag is incomprehensible. To me personally, but speaking as a northern Canadian, the whole business is a pathetically stupid piece of fumbling by a Prime Minister devoted to tokenism in the handling of Canadian domestic problems. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the conversion of the flag debate in a barely disguised underground battle between the two founding races is a direct result of the ineptitude of the Prime Minister and more particularly of his advisers. The issue is not a real one, nor is the proposed solution a real solution. The subamendment we have before us is, as I see it, an attempt to modify and change a basically unsound and unfortunate government resolution.
I have spoken about these matters before and I intend to do so again today. When we talk about tokenism surely the parallel is obvious, that parallel being the B and B commission. This, after all, was one of the greatest exercises in tokenism that any Canadian prime minister has ever attempted. This is saying to people who have legitimate complaints, who have legitimate feelings of injustice on certain matters, "We will give you a commission where the extremists among you can run off at the mouth. It will change nothing really but we will say in the next election, see what we have done, we have set up the B and B commission," as though that accomplished anything.
This is what the flag issue is, too, because the Prime Minister and the government will go to the people of the country and say, see here are three maple leaves; you have unity, you have a nation. This is nonsense, and it is the most vicious kind of nonsense that could be perpetrated on the Canadian people at this time. I say it is vicious because I believe this issue is postponing in fact two essential steps that have to be taken to achieve Canadian unity. As I see them, these two steps are in the first place the repatriation of the constitution, which we know is being worked on but which will be postponed in the

artificial atmosphere of a new flag; and second, a hard headed review of the responsibilities and the revenues in each of the federal and provincial spheres of government.
This is the work that needs to be done to give Canada a new sense of national purpose. What frightens me about the flag is that should it be accepted, be it three maple leaves or one, be they red or green, it will be used to say to the people, "Here, you really have something," when in fact the basic problems confronting this nation will have been postponed for an even longer period.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that if he wants to meet the needs of certain areas of Canada he should state firmly now the position his government will take in relation to new kinds of revenue and new kinds of arrangements that will be made with the provinces. Quebec has legitimate demands that must be met. What I want the Prime Minister to do is to outline these views to the house and the country, and say to Quebec and all the other provinces, "Beyond this we do not go".
I say that because what is bothering many people is a vague feeling of unease that there is no end to the demands that will be made by a group of people in a minority position who feel, perhaps quite rightly, that they have been treated unjustly. Such action on the part of the Prime Minister would do much in itself to remove the malaise that is affecting many Canadians and that causes them to interpret every act of the government as some kind of appeasement to Quebec, whether it is or not.
At this point I want to take a few moments to register strong objection to the efforts of numerous members of parliament from the province of Quebec in all parties to appoint themselves as the sole spokesmen for the so-called French Canadian people. I am a French Canadian from the Northwest Territories. I am as French Canadian as anyone in the House of Commons. I can trace my ancestry back to 1665 and an early deserter from the French forces. I am able to read French and can speak it haltingly, sufficiently well to get by. Indeed, I am relearning the language, and within a year I should be able to chatter along with the best of you.
But this is beside the point completely. Indeed, I resent the implicit suggestions that any French Canadian who cannot speak French has forsaken his cultural heritage or is some kind of traitor. I resent the suggestion that the well-being of French Canadians 20220-458
Canadian Flag
is totally tied up with the well-being of the province of Quebec.
I make these points, Mr. Speaker, because the myth is being circulated that all people of French descent support the expressions of view of a handful of extremists, some of whom are in this house. I have a right to speak for those French Canadians among us who do not live in Quebec, who do not speak French as their first language, who do not particularly feel that they have had an unfair deal, who do not resent the union jack or the red ensign, who do not consider the world wide use of English in commerce and international aviation as some sort of Anglo-Saxon plot against Quebec. Furthermore, I suggest that the widespread unease, anxiety and tension are being heightened by seemingly interminable demands on the part of some Quebec members, and more particularly by the startling inability of the government to manage the business of the house.
I urge the Prime Minister to use restraint in the course he has adopted, because the temper in the rest of Canada and indeed among many French Canadians in other parts of Canada is not good.


Mr. Berger:: Who says so?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I say so. You listen, because I will have more to say. I urge the Prime Minister and the government to depart from the kind of tactic that we saw too often in the two previous election campaigns, the business of destroying something that is good before you can say you have anything else to offer. It was a matter of real concern to me to see the disrespect that became widespread with regard to the red ensign and the efforts, which I have to believe were conscious and deliberate, to discredit the red ensign among the young people of the country and in certain parts of the country as a preliminary step to introducing the three maple leaves pattern. I say get rid of this kind of tactic, because you will never achieve unity that way and you will only leave many of us in Canada with a bitter taste in our mouths.
The amendment and subamendment set out the terms of a plebiscite. Some speakers have suggested that a plebiscite would divide the country as it has never been divided before, but oddly enough these same speakers feel that a vote in the House of Commons would not divide. I ask this question. Why in the world would anyone believe that feelings and emotions in the House of Commons would be less deep or less painful than in the country at large? Who is afraid to allow the

Canadian Flag
Canadian people the opportunity to say what they want in terms of a majority vote in a plebiscite?
I ask this question today particularly after the sham and the subterfuge has been stripped away from the public position of the Prime Minister on this whole question of the flag. I have wondered for weeks how there could be complete unanimity in the Liberal caucus over the flag issue. It was not until the confession of the hon. member for York-Humber yesterday that I realized why there was no disagreement. The matter had never been discussed with the membership of the caucus.
I urge the Prime Minister to reconsider this whole question, its timing and its dangers. There is after all, Mr. Speaker, a difference between courage and foolhardiness. I suggest that the course he is now following can only lead to a confrontation of all strong people, can only divide and deepen mistrust. If he does not do this, if he insists as he did earlier today that he shall have his way, then I predict that he will be remembered in history not as a man of many distinguished accomplishments and contributions to Canada, but rather as the great token prime minister who helped the country into bitterness that will he a lasting black mark on his name, on our House of Commons and on our time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hesitated to rise, Mr. Speaker, because I did not want to prevent some member of the Liberal party from participating in the debate. I continue to wonder why no member of the cabinet has come to the defence of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was not doing that the other day. What has happened to the former great Liberal party?
However, as no one did rise, I take this opportunity to participate in what has become a great, historic debate of national importance. There is no question now, since ample evidence has been produced in the course of this debate, that there is a very strong feeling across this country against the action of the present government, and particularly the action of the Prime Minister. There has been ample evidence of the strength of feeling in members who have spoken so far in the course of this debate, and they have indicated that they are expressing the feelings of their constituents.
The miscalculation of the Prime Minister and his advisers has been shown to be very great. There was miscalculation with regard to the approach to a subject such as this
[Mr. Rhesume.)
which arouses the emotions, which affects our history and traditions; an amazing miscalculation with regard to the attitude that would be taken by the members of races other than the founding races of this country; a miscalculation with regard to the method by which an innovation like this should be brought forward.
This is a catalogue of errors. The result so far has been not to create the unity which the Prime Minister emphasized so much in his opening speech on this subject, but to create great disunity. The Prime Minister will go down in history as the man who, of his own accord, by his own faulty judgment, created greater disunity in this country than at any time in our history. This is a lamentable development indeed. I hope it is not too late for the Prime Minister to retrace his steps and restore to Canada better feeling with regard to the matters that should unite us rather than divide us.
In a matter such as this, as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris pointed out when he was speaking, evolution is the process, a slow and steady development if change is desired in something that touches so deeply at the roots of our country, and not the revolutionary tactics and arbitrary action of the government. This was the initial, vital mistake of the Prime Minister. His greatest error was made in his approach to the biennial conference of the Royal Canadian Legion in May of this year in the city of Winnipeg. Members of the Royal Canadian Legion will take second place to no citizens of this country in their devotion to duty and their love of their country. They have demonstrated this ever since the organization of that great body. Their efforts are primarily concentrated, after they have dealt with the problems of their disabled comrades, on improving the life of communities right across Canada and making stronger our national spirit.
However, it was to this body that the Prime Minister, without prior notice, without advising the officers of that organization that he was going to introduce a political note, brought forward his proposal for a new flag. As a member of the Legion since 1927 I register, as my comrades on this side of the house have, my protest against that action. When I heard that the Prime Minister was going out to Winnipeg to do this-and in this rumour-infested town you hear about these things in advance-I said it would not happen for three reasons. First, the Prime Minister is himself a veteran of the first

world war. He will respect the stand of the veterans on the question of the flag. He knows they have been endeavouring to conduct a campaign to retain the Canadian red ensign. In the second place, he will not do it because, as a veteran, he knows that their opening ceremony held on Sunday is a memorial service, a deeply impressive memorial service, for the hundred thousand comrades who were left overseas around the world. I said that he would know every man and woman in that audience on that occasion would be thinking of friends who had been lost in battle. I said the third reason he would not do it would be that, after years of experience in the field of diplomacy and in political life, he would judge it to be unwise to introduce a political question under such circumstances.
Unfortunately the Prime Minister, either wrongly advised or failing to exercise good judgment, intruded himself upon that memorial service of the Canadian Legion and introduced a political tone that aroused controversy which will not be forgotten. Unfortunately the Prime Minister-and this is really unfortunate because veterans tend to respect veterans-lost the respect of thousands of members of the Canadian Legion. To show how much effect his announcement had on this gathering, in subsequent days when they were still assembled in their business sessions, a petition addressed to the Secretary of State was signed with 1,100 names, indicating the veterans were unimpressed with the Prime Minister's point of view and registering their opinion and belief that the Canadian red ensign should be maintained as Canada's flag. I shall transmit that petition to the Secretary of State as a permanent record of the feelings of the members of the Canadian Legion who were present at that meeting.
I intend to deal with certain inaccuracies which have crept into this debate, concerning the maple leaf emblem and the Canadian red ensign, and then I propose to indicate why in the suggested plebiscite, if and when it is held, people should give their support to the flag we now have rather than to the personal choice of the Prime Minister or to the personal choice of a fragment of the New Democratic party, because you have in those two suggestions political flags, flags sponsored by political parties. With regard to the inaccuracies that have crept into the debate so far, much has been made of the fact that the maple leaf has a long history in our country, and with that I do not disagree. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), who patiently made quite a study of this matter, 20220-458J
Canadian Flag
pointed that out when he was talking. It has been a recognized symbol and, as I said during the course of his speech, we admire it as a symbol but not as a flag.
I do not quarrel with any of the arguments made about the antiquity of the maple leaf as a Canadian symbol, but I do suggest that the references made by the hon. member for Leeds and the Prime Minister, with regard to its use by the Canadian army overseas and Canadian service people overseas in two world wars, are somewhat inaccurate.
Quite a bit was made of the fact that most of the battalions that served overseas in the first world war wore the maple leaf as a cap badge or shoulder badge. That is true because about 90 per cent of them did; but I happen to be one, like the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane), who served in that world war and never wore a maple leaf badge. There were thousands of others also in a similar position. However most of the battalions did have a maple leaf badge, and it arose this way.
When mobilization was called in 1914 General Sir Sam Hughes, minister of national defence, decided he would not use the names of the militia regiments and favoured instead, and so ordered, that regiments would be numbered. So the battalions that were raised were numbered from one up to several hundred. Then, when the battalions were being organized the commanding officers were faced with a considerable problem, one which I have gone through twice in my experience in the army, namely what to do for a cap badge, what should be the design, and what to do with a number, like 7, 44 or 115, pinned to the cap. The obvious solution was to put a backing on the cap badge, and the easiest thing to deal with was a maple leaf. And so the maple leaf was used as a base and the numbers were superimposed on it.
There were a few exceptions. The Little Black Devils of Winnipeg did not put the maple leaf behind their historic figure. The 22nd regiment superimposed their number on the beaver, and the Black Watch maintained their original insignia. The Fort Garry Horse of Winnipeg had the Fort Garry gate, and they put the maple leaf behind that; but they should now remove it because the Fort Garry gate alone is sufficient recognition of that regiment. Neither did the Royal Canadian Dragoons make use of the maple leaf. And so it was by accident, not by design, that the maple leaf was so outstanding and so extensively used in the first world war.
In the second world war about 60 per cent of the battalions in the army used the maple

Canadian Flag
leaf in connection with their badges, and 40 per cent did not. Once again in my experience in the second world war I served in northwest Europe without wearing anything resembling a maple leaf, and so did thousands of other members of the Canadian army, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the navy. In the second world war the maple leaf was not the all-pervading symbol that it was in the first world war, and in the regular army of today only about 20 per cent of the battalions have a maple leaf incorporated in the design of their badges. Therefore the maple leaf has been going out of existence since the first world war, when it arose by accident, and you cannot make an argument on the basis of war experience that the maple leaf was preferred by Canadian servicemen.
To give the house an example of how misconceptions arise, in the fall of 1945 some parliamentarians visited northwest Europe. They motored up from the Normandy beaches into Holland, and by that time the army was forward in Holland and on the banks of the Meuse. These parliamentarians were impressed by what they saw en route and one of them made the following remarks a few years ago, after indicating where they had been. As a matter of fact they did not drive up from the Normandy beaches. They flew into Brussels, motored down the coastline and then up into Holland; but this is what he says about the Canadian troops:
As if they were anxious to show that they were Canadians they had painted maple leaves on pieces of cardboard, and nailed them to the telegraph poles and trees along the road. If up to that time I had not believed that Canada should have a distinctive flag, I would have believed it then. And ever since that time, whenever, I have had the opportunity I have told that story, because I think it meets some of the arguments of those who think that we should not consider having a purely distinctive national flag.
It is very easy for misconceptions to arise when you do not know the facts. The fighting troops of the Canadian army were much further forward than these visiting parliamentarians. The parliamentarians travelled along a route which was marked with maple leaf emblems from the Normandy beaches into Holland, and the purpose of those markings was simply to direct the lorry drivers on that long drive, travelling night and day, so that they would not have to stop to read maps. We called it "maple leaf up" and "maple leaf down". Those signs were just road signs set up by ingenious Canadians for that purpose, and they were of great help to a lorry driver I had in my regiment who

was unable to read or write, but who could follow the signs.
One of the visiting parliamentarians thought this was evidence of a national desire on the part of the Canadian troops to have the maple leaf as their symbol. But there was nothing to it at all. It was simply a route director and the Canadian soldiers paid no more attention to this than they did to a great many other things during their lives. As a matter of fact, in both world wars the distinguishing sign for Canadians was the word "Canada" on the shoulder, worn on the greatcoat or on the tunic. You don't peer at a man's cap badge to find out what country he comes from; you look at the flash on his shoulder. Every Canadian was proud to have the word "Canada" there, and that is how they were designated. In forward areas, where steel helmets were worn, there were no cap badges in evidence. It was the distinguishing regimental flash, the brigade and divisional insignia on the arm of the tunic, which indicated where a man belonged.


Mr. Maiheson:: But every divisional badge contained a maple leaf.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. In the first world war there were 140 badges and these will be found in the official history of that war. They were of different colours, and there is not a maple leaf to be found among them.
Another inaccuracy which has crept into this debate is the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) as reported on page 4321 of Hansard:
The red ensign, though many of my correspondents do not seem to appreciate this, was not in use during world war one in any way, shape or form for the Canadian forces.
I do not know where the Prime Minister served during the first world war but I think it was not in Flanders. He must have been completely unaware of what was going on. Yesterday my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), imperturbable as he must have been as an artillery man in the first world war, showed equal impertur-bility here under a missile attack in the House of Commons and gave incontrovertible evidence that the Canadian red ensign was used among Canadian troops between 1914 and 1918, and backed his statements up with testimony from General McNaughton. I can corroborate this story, because I was present also, on July 1, Dominion day, at the corps sports event which everyone who was there

will remember all his life. On that occasion, Canadian red ensigns were flying freely at our assembly points.
Was the Canadian red ensign used elsewhere in the first world war? Of course. In 1918 a monument was unveiled to the artillerymen who lost their lives during the battle of Vimy ridge and the Canadian red ensign was flown at the unveiling; a picture of it may be found in some of the books in the library. The Prime Minister did not make the long march from Mons to Germany to join the army of occupation. But I did. When we crossed the Rhine bridges, the first division crossing at Cologne and the second division at Bonn, we passed reviewing stands and on those stands the Canadian red ensign was flying with the union jack. I remember it very well, and as far as the bridge at Bonn is concerned, a reproduction appears in the August 1 edition of the Globe magazine-the second Canadian division passing the reviewing stand where the Canadian red ensign was flying. We experienced the same thing when the first Canadian division crossed the bridge at Cologne.
Let me remind the house of another significant factor. Earlier than this, in 1915, in the month of April, the Canadian first division- I was not there at the time-was subjected to a poison gas attack and fought the battle of St. Julien which prevented the Germans breaking through to Ypres and the coast. The name of Canada was spread throughout the world as a result of that action. This was the first occasion in the history of the world upon which poison gas had been used, and our Canadian troops were among the first to be subjected to it. They were without any protection whatsoever-it was before gas masks had been invented. And they held the line, though the Canadian division suffered 6,000 casualties, killed and wounded. But, as I say, the name of Canada was flashed across the world and in the celebrated magazine Punch, an artist, sensing the significance of that occasion, drew a picture which has since been reproduced many times in this country -it should be hanging somewhere in the corridors of our parliament buildings. It was a picture of a Canadian soldier standing on a battlefield amid barbed wire and mud; near him is a piece of artillery and all around is a scene of desolation and destruction. The soldier standing there holds a rifle in one hand, and in the other, he grasps-what? A Canadian red ensign-the distinctive flag of Canada at that time.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: I mention these things to correct some of the inaccuracies which have crept into this debate thus far.
Another inaccuracy which is even more alarming is an inaccuracy with regard to Canada's coat of arms. The Prime Minister and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Mathe-son) have based their case on the emblem of the three maple leaves which appears in the coat of arms, and they have drawn our attention to the proclamation of 1921. It is an incidental footnote to history that when this declaration was signed by King George in 1921 it was transmitted to Canada, to the governor general here, by none other than one who was a member of the government at that time, the most famous man of this century, Winston Churchill. His letter will be found in the appropriate books.
Hon. members opposite have spoken about that proclamation and they have based their case upon it. But they have been misled into inaccuracies. I do not think they realize the extent of those inaccuracies. On June 15, the Prime Minister, as recorded on page 4322 of Hansard, spoke on the subject of the proclamation and the order in council, and then he used these words:
If I may paraphrase this royal proclamation of 1921 establishing the arms of Canada, by simplifying the heraldic language, what it said in essence was this: The King, at the request of Canada, assigns to Canada the national colours white and red, and declares that the national emblem of Canada shall be three red maple leaves on one stem, on a white field. These shall be used to represent Canada on all appropriate occasions. Surely Mr. Speaker, that answers the two questions "What are our national colours"? "What is our national emblem"?
I suggest, first, that those words were not the original words of the Prime Minister; they are the words of Colonel Duguid, who delivered exactly that interpretation of the proclamation to the committee which was meeting in 1945 to discuss the Canadian flag. Those words, which I shall soon show to be inaccurate, have continued down for almost 20 years now, have received the blessing of the Prime Minister and are already being quoted as authentic by people who are writing letters to newspapers.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I will but interrupt my hon. friend for a moment, but I wonder whether at this point he would be good enough to explain the answer given by his government on February 5, 1963, to question No. 1,449. This question was:
Does Canada have a national emblem; and If so, what is the emblem?

Canadian Flag
The answer was:
Yes. Three maple leaves conjoined on one stem.
The other question was:
Does Canada have national colours; and if so, what are these colours?
Yes. White and red.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am very glad the hon. member mentioned that, Mr. Speaker, because he has been studying this problem and his speech in June encouraged me to study it. I would say now that the government of our day was misled, in exactly the same way as was the government of Mr. Mackenzie King, the government of Mr. St. Laurent, and the present government. I shall give the house the evidence to show this is the case. I will put forward two pieces of evidence. One is contained in the committee report of 1945 and is to be found on page 59. Mr. Savage, who is not without distinction in the art of heraldry, made these statements. He said that Colonel Duguid's statement abounds in false premises and inaccuracies; that Colonel Duguid has confounded the colours of mantling and crest wreath with "national colours"; has taken the maple sprig, a small part of Canada's arms, and incorrectly stated that it is the "national emblem of Canada". Then Mr. Savage says in so doing Colonel Duguid has changed from green to red the accepted and heraldically proper colour of the maple leaves; has read into and deduced from the proclamation, and has presented as facts, conclusions and statements which definitely are not included in that document.
As further evidence let me draw to the attention of the house the explanatory notes that were produced by the committee of 1921. The committee, which the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) has drawn to our attention, and has commended for its ability- with which I do not disagree at all, because very able men sat on that committee-made certain comments in their explanatory notes concerning the coat of arms. You have to refer to a bulletin of the dominion bureau of statistics in order to find what they had to say. I have been able to find only the second edition of a descriptive booklet published by the office of the secretary of state in 1923. There was obviously a first edition. There have been subsequent editions published, I think, in 1937 and 1947. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I had to go back to the d.b.s. annual report of 1921 to find out what they had decided was the meaning of that proclamation and the advice they had given to the government. This is

what you will find on page 17 of the Canada Year Book of 1921:
Three considerations were kept in view in determining the "achievement of arms", i.e., the combination of arms, crest, supporters and motto, which has now been authorized. These were: first, that Canadians stand to their King in as close a relation as do any of his subjects elsewhere: secondly, that Canada, an integral part of the British empire, has emerged from the war a member of the league of nations; and lastly, that Canada was founded by the men of four different races-French, English, Scottish and Irish-and that Canadians inherit the language, laws, literature and arms of all four mother countries.
The arms are those of England, Scotland, Ireland, and France, with a "difference" to mark them as Canadian, namely, on the lower third of the shield, a sprig of maple on a silver shield.
The crest is a lion holding in its paw a red maple leaf, a symbol of sacrifice.
The supporters are, with some slight distinctions, the lion and unicorn of the royal arms. The lion upholds the union jack, and the unicorn the ancient banner of France.
The motto is new-A mari usaue ad mare-"From Sea to Sea''...
There is not one word there with regard to national colours. Are we to believe that the committee which sat in 1921, and which subsequently drew up the representations for the coat of arms and had the coat of arms produced and submitted to the college of heralds in London, were dealing with national colours when they went through all that work? Why did they not make some mention of "national colours" in the course of their explanatory notes? Why is there no mention of this in the subsequent issues? In this issue there is not one word about "national colours". I ask the hon. member for Leeds, who has made a study of this problem, to indicate to me the authority by which he determined that the mantling on the coat of arms represents national colours. I have not been able to find any authority for that.


Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Speaker, if I may-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Subsequently he may be able to give us that information. If so, I shall be very grateful. But I want to move on to this other significant point, Mr. Speaker.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may answer that point. These colours are in both the wreath of the liveries and in the mantling of the arms. And has this not been completely covered in the announcement of the Hon. Ellen Fairclough of October 8, 1957 and, furthermore, Her Majesty's banner as Queen of Canada, containing three maple leaves on a white field at base, which was created by Sir Anthony Wagner in 1962, when my hon. friend was a member of the privy council?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Is the hon. member for Leeds rising to ask a question, or is he rising on a point of order?


Some hon. Members:: He made a speech.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I rose in reply to what was said by my hon. friend and also to ask a question of him. My question is, has not this matter been dealt with by the clear, unequivocal statement of the Hon. Ellen Fair-clough of October 8, 1957; and, furthermore, the subsequent act of Her Majesty in 1962 on the matter of her own banner as Queen of Canada?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not mind these interruptions, Mr. Speaker, provided my time is not subsequently reduced, because it is a very interesting question. I think our government was misled, just as other governments were misled, by that original statement of Colonel Duguid's. Let me deal now with the three red maple leaves. I have read the description that on the coat of arms there is a lion standing on the crest, holding in an uplifted paw a red maple leaf. The explanation is, "The crest is a lion holding in its paw a red maple leaf, a symbol of sacrifice". That description or definition was repeated in the subsequent issues concerning the arms of Canada, published by the office of the Secretary of State, until you reach the issue of this year, 1964, when that descriptive sentence is left out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why was it left out? In the terminology of the coat of arms this red leaf is described as "gules", which means red. There were three other leaves in the coat of arms and the description, I think, can be given as "proper", or in the French version, "au naturel", which means in its natural state. The red maple leaf had been pre-empted for one specific purpose, to indicate the sacrifice of life in the first world war which contributed to the building of our nation.
We cannot have then, sir, one red maple leaf representing that sacrifice and then three more red maple leaves. That was never intended, because had the people who devised the coat of arms in 1921 intended that the three leaves at the bottom should be red they would have specifically stated that and used the word "gules". They did not use that word but instead "proper" or "au naturel". The maple leaf in its natural state is green. It is when the leaf is dying that it turns red.
Canadian Flag
Are we to take away from the coat of arms, as has been taken away in this descriptive booklet, that red maple leaf which represents a blood sacrifice in the first world war? I say that Colonel Duguid was wrong when he said that the three maple leaves at the lower part of the coat of arms should be red. He was obviously aiming at the achievement of something; a white background for a flag with red maple leaves.
We are now faced with this problem. What do we do with the coat of arms? If we are going to accept the idea of three red maple leaves on a white background in the coat of arms, what do we do with the red maple leaf in the right paw of the lion representing that sacrifice? You see, this is an impossible situation. I suggest this change was made for some deliberate purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am surprised that members opposite laugh. I think that red maple leaf representing the sacrifice made in the first world war is very proper and should be retained. I think, therefore, we should revert to the colour which was on the crest before, namely three green maple leaves.
Referring again to the original question asked by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), Mr. Speaker, I think that the secretary of state in 1957 was misled or not given complete information. As a matter of fact, I phoned her to find out what the situation was, but my only recollection of that episode is that we were told the coat of arms would be changed because Queen Elizabeth had selected a different crown; the St. Edward crown to replace the Tudor crown. The only alteration required in the coat of arms was a redrawing of the crown, and that was done.
That opened the way to what has been called a simplification of the coat of arms. I do not object to this and I think it has been done rather nicely. However, in the circular letter-there was no order in council- issued on September 23, 1957 and signed by the under secretary of state, there was nothing to indicate that there would be changes made in the coat of arms. There was reference to the fact that the change was being made because of the change of crown, and I think this is sensible. There was also reference to simplifying representations of the coat of arms but not one word in respect of changing the green maple leaves to red.
Mr. Speaker, when the enlarged coat of arms was hung up in the railway committee room several years ago I looked at it week

Canadian Flag
after week while sitting there in caucus, and I commenced to wonder why we could not have the colours put on that coat of arms. I went to the Speaker of the house, Hon. Mr. Michener, and asked whether steps could be taken to have that coat of arms coloured so we could see exactly what was on it. Had it been coloured I am sure I would have noticed the change from green to red.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest an error has been committed, and the reason I have dealt with this matter at length is that unless this error is corrected people outside this House of Commons, writing about our coat of arms and our so-called national colours, will follow this mistaken course. I feel this error should be corrected.
Mr. Speaker, I could produce more evidence from people skilled in heraldry to support my point of view. I think it would be a great advantage to a committee to consider this problem and to call for expert advice. We are amateurs in heraldry. I did not know much about it three months ago, although I know a lot more about it today. But we are only amateurs. Furthermore, the revised coat of arms issued in 1957 was not submitted to the college of heralds in London, and there is no college of heralds in Canada. It was not submitted for their advice, counsel and approval as to whether or not this design was accurate. I suggest we have fallen into an error. We are referring to Canada's colours being white and red. I say there is no authority for that suggestion. We are talking about Canada's national emblem being three red maple leaves on a silver-white background. I say there is no authority for that suggestion whatsoever, except that statement made by Colonel Duguid in 1945.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he has given serious consideration-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired, unless he has the unanimous consent of the house to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the hon. member is overlooking in his comments the fact that a royal warrant of Queen Victoria in 1868 conferred-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member for Leeds can be allowed to ask a question I think we must ascertain whether hon. members will extend the permission of

the house to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to speak beyond his allotted time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any objection to the hon. member who had the floor being allowed to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) but I am against his being given more time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Apparently the hon. member does not have the unanimous consent of the house to continue. I regret that we cannot hear him.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is very difficult for the Chair, in view of comments being made on both sides of the house, to determine clearly whether or not the hon. member has unanimous consent to continue. Do we have unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hear at least one no, and in the circumstances I regret that the hon. member may not continue.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I bow to the
will of the house.


Mr. A. M. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I originally had no intention of entering this debate on the flag, but after so many opposition members stating that the backbenchers in the Liberal party should get up and state their opinions I concluded that I should do so, and give my reasons for the position I take. It is not against my conscience that I do so, Mr. Speaker.
First let me say I am a Canadian, a Legion member and a past president of my local Legion branch. I am a life member of the Legion and I served in the first great war under the union flag or, as it is called, the union jack. Sometimes I think I belong to the lost generation, the generation of the union jack. All these things I do not think should keep me from thinking and stating that Canada should have a distinctive flag.
As a Canadian, my ancestors have been here for upwards of 200 years. Before the first great war I was what you might call a Britisher-not an Englishman, Mr. Speaker,

but a Britisher. Canada was a part of the empire and I was a British subject. For me, when the empire was at war Canada was at war. At that time I was not alone in those thoughts. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was an ardent champion of the empire. In fact, in 1898 his postmaster general brought out a stamp and the stamp showed the British empire all in red and Canada in the centre. The words on the stamp were, "We hold a vaster empire than has been". Even the Transvaal and the Orange Free State of South Africa were incorporated in red, although I believe they were not annexed by Britain until two years later.
For many reasons the first great war changed the opinions and ideas of a great many people, and after the war for me Canada came first. On returning home I thought in the words of the poet:
Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land?
If I was not before, Mr. Speaker, I was a Canadian then; but the union jack was still my flag. It has been said by opposition members that the cross of St. George, the cross of St. Andrew and the cross of St. Patrick, together forming the union jack, have always stood for high ideals, justice and freedom and that in fact they represent our Christian faith. I would say that on balance in the past this was probably true. But what about a Scotsman whose forebears were forced out of Scotland under this same flag? Can he look back and, remembering the forced emigration from Scotland, the clansmen who were evicted from the highlands, the homes that were burned and the people who died on the emigration ships, think that that flag at that time represented high ideals, justice, freedom and the Christian faith for the highlanders? The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan) can perhaps bear me out.
Reading John Prebble's "The Highland Clearances", one finds that in the summer of 1791 George Dunoon advertised the sailing of the Sarah and the Dove from Fort William in Scotland for Pictou, Nova Scotia. Had the laws then covering slave ships applied to these emigration vessels, they would not have been allowed to carry more than 489 passengers. Dunoon filled the tiny holds with 700 emigrants from Lord Reay's country and the clan lands of Seaforth, Fraser and Cameron. If they believed his promise that in Nova Scotia they would find a tree that supplied fuel, soap and sugar, they might have found the nightmare voyage endurable, but it is unlikely. Forty nine people died on the Sarah alone and the
Canadian Flag
suffering of all was so terrible that it was remembered in Nova Scotia for more than a century.
You might say, Mr. Speaker, why did they go? Well, the lairds or the chiefs of the clans owned the lands and they could not resist English money. The Scottish highlands were rented or bought up for sheep ranches. The people were evicted from their homes and if they did not move their homes were burned. They had to emigrate. It is surprising to me, Mr. Speaker, that so many of these people, including myself, still have a great love for their native land, Scotland, and for the flag which looked down on these terrible scenes. Perhaps it is because we can forget the past.
I heard a member of the opposition say that a country that forgets its past has no future, or words to that effect. However, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that most of the trouble in the world is because we cannot forget the past or do not wish to forget the past.
Look at the trouble on Cyprus, Mr. Speaker, the trouble on the Israeli border, the trouble in Kenya. In fact, it seems to me that the trouble all over the world is caused by people who cannot forget the past. My great-greatgrandfather was scalped by the French and Indians on a raid down the Saint John river, but I do not see that this is any reason for me to keep on remembering it so that I should hate all Frenchmen and all Indians. Apparently we were a bicultural people at that time.


Mr. Boutin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the opposition members-


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


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just said that his ancestors were scalped by the French. I wonder where in history books that fact is mentioned and, consequently, I feel that this gratuitous statement should be deleted from the hon. member's speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is obvious that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Dorchester is not well taken. He could ask a question which the hon. member for Charlotte could answer, but he cannot raise a point of order in this connection.
7246	HOUSE OF
Canadian Flag


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: Again, I heard an opposition member say that his father came to this country and found freedom. A great many people have come to this country and found freedom, but it was not always thus. We did not always have responsible government in Canada.


Mr. Mandziuk:: We do not have it now.


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: Louis Joseph Pa-pineau and William Mackenzie had to go to the United States. We had a rebellion in 1837. We did not always have responsible government in this Canada of ours. It was my great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather and many of the great-grandfathers of the members present who made this country and laid the foundations of freedom for those who came after to enjoy and for the present generation to enjoy.
It has been said by an opposition member that the Canadian red ensign is known all over the world as representing Canada, and is the only red ensign. I would point out that in 1939 there were six red ensigns. The British mercantile marine had one, Canada had one, Jamaica had one, British Guiana had one, Tasmania had one and Newfoundland had one. I have known the union jack and the red ensign for over 70 years and to my mind the red ensign has always been a secondary flag.
As of 1939, Pear's Encyclopedia states that the flag flown over Canadian government buildings outside Canada is the red ensign, but that inside Canada the union jack is used. Before the first great war we had no embassies abroad but after the war in the early thirties, I believe, embassies were established and there was no way to distinguish a Canadian embassy from a British embassy if they both flew the union jack, which was the flag of Canada. So apparently the secondary flag, the red ensign, was flown over these buildings. Hence Pear's Encyclopedia states that in 1939 the red ensign was flown over Canadian government buildings outside Canada and by the Canadian mercantile marine, but inside Canada the union jack was used.
The union flag was introduced in 1606 after the union of England and Scotland and first bore the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew. It was ordered by James I to be borne on the maintop of all British ships except ships of war. On ships of war the union flag was borne upon their jackstaffs.
I believe this is the reason why it is called 

the union jack. The cross of St. Patrick was added in 1801 on the union with Ireland.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are three ensigns and the ensign is flown upon the ensign staff of the vessel indicating its nationality. The red, white and blue ensigns represented the divisions of the British fleet but in 1864 the divisions were done away with and new uses were allocated to the three ensigns. The white ensign is the exclusive flag of the Royal Navy and the Royal Yacht Squadron. The red ensign is flown by British merchant ships and ships not belonging to the Royal Navy. The blue ensign is flown by the Royal Naval Reserve and by certain yacht clubs.
The Cambridge Encyclopedia states that colonial war vessels flew the blue ensign with the colony's badge in the fly. Recently I made a voyage on a Canadian government fishery vessel to Campobello and I noticed that the vessel flew the blue ensign and it had a badge in the fly, I presume denoting the colony. I would also point out that in Jamaica the flag with the crosses flew for nearly 300 years, 100 years longer than in Canada. When Jamaica became independent this flag, which had represented the power and prestige of the British for 300 years, was pulled down or lowered not by a citizen of Jamaica but by a member of the royal family, Princess Margaret. I would point out also, Mr. Speaker, that the blue ensign, the flag of Kenya, was pulled down or lowered not by a citizen of Kenya but by a member of the royal family, Prince Philip. Can the opposition be more loyal to the crown than the royal family itself?
It has been said by members of the opposition that the crosses on our flag represent the Christian faith and the government is engaged in pulling down the Chistian faith; that they are apparently about to raise a non-Christian flag. Some rather vicious propaganda has come across my desk in this regard. In one propaganda sheet headed, "The Sign of the Times", it states:
Christian haters have taken the cross off the soldiers' graves, so take the cross off the flag- the next will be the cross out of the churches.
I do not believe that any member in this house would agree that this is true. I would point to the Irish republic, a Christian state from early days and the emerald isle of St. Patrick. I suppose the Irishmen in the Irish republic are more Roman Catholic than the Roman Catholics themselves. Yet when they got a new flag, Mr. Speaker, did they put on it the cross of St. Patrick? No, they did not.

The Irish republic has a flag consisting of three stripes, green, white and orange. I can imagine that the green is for the emerald isle and the white is probably for honour or the Christian state. However the orange, that colour stumped me, unless it was put on for the orangemen of the six counties of northern Ireland with whom they wish to unite some time. The stripes are all of equal width, the green being nearest the pole. This argument, therefore, about Christianity and the flag seems to me to fall flat when we consider the flag of the Irish republic. In fact, many Christian countries have crosses on their flags and many Christian countries have not. Are we to say that the great republic to the south of us is not a Christian country because a cross does not appear on its flag?
I want a distinctive Canadian flag, Mr. Speaker. I have 12 grandchildren and I do not want them living in the past. I want them to live for the future. I want a distinctive Canadian flag for that future for them. Then, they and all other grandchildren in Canada can say, "This is my flag; this is the Canadian flag which represents the Canada of the future". Canada is a great country, Mr. Speaker. It is going to be still greater in thought, in word and in deed. I see the future of Canada in the bright, young and intelligent faces I look upon as I travel across our wonderful land.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, since the day the session began this house has probably not faced a more important or a more serious decision than that concerning the new flag of this country. The flag, in itself, may not be important but that for which it stands is most important. Someone has said it represents the soul of the people, and I believe that. I believe that no amount of effort, no expense and no amount of time should stand in the way of this house choosing and offering the Canadian people a flag which will attain the unity of the people. Unity is needed in this country as much as anything else is needed. We have two great races that are undertaking to create, on the northern half of this continent, a great nation. Its future is almost unlimited. We have made a great start.
There have been murmurings recently of discontent, a certain amount of bickering and quarrelling between the founding races of this country. I do not believe that this is serious, and after listening to the speeches in this debate I think that this house and the people of the country can take great hope
Canadian Flag
from what has transpired so far. The government, I honestly believe, has tried to add to the unity of Canada by presenting to the people a new Canadian flag, a distinctive flag, a flag which the people of Canada will be willing to accept as their own. I would commend the government for this, even although I think their approach to this problem is very wrong.
During one of the discussions of a recent budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) urged this house to give consideration to the objectives of the government, to take cognizance of what the government was trying to do, to give them credit for trying to improve the economy of this country. Well, I am willing to give the government credit for trying to create a greater measure of satisfaction in this country through the introduction of a flag.
Now we have before us a resolution, an amendment and a subamendment. The principle involved in the resolution is the establishment of a distinctive Canadian flag for Canada. I can agree with that. I can agree with most of the first sentence in the resolution which is to the effect that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish an official flag. I cannot agree with the remainder of it. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has moved that all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted:
As the proposal to change Canada's national flag will affect the unity and destiny of Canada now and for years to come, the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to conduct a plebiscite prior to any further action being taken by the House of Commons, in order that all Canadians may be given their rightful opportunity to declare their choice concerning a national flag.
Again, so far as the idea of a plebiscite is concerned, I am in wholehearted accord with it. I am speaking for myself when I say I question the words after the word "plebiscite" which are, "prior to any further action being taken by the House of Commons," and my reason for questioning that particular part of the amendment will be made clear as I go along.
The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) would seek to insert four questions in a plebiscite:
1.	Are you In favour of the Canadian red ensign?
2.	Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritages of both founding races?
3.	Are you in favour of the three maple leaves design?
4.	Are you in favour of a one maple leaf design?

Canadian Flag
I would like to see the people of Canada offered their choice in this regard, but I would not put these questions in words, I would put them in flag designs. The ballot would contain four, five or six of the most popular designs that can be arrived at through an all party committee or through a commission, and the people would be allowed to mark their "X" opposite the particular design of their choice. If that method were followed I see no reason why a flag design could not be arrived at and accepted which could be a unifying influence in this country.
Some people favour the red ensign; some favour three maple leaves, some favour one maple leaf. But there are other people who do not favour any of these and who are looking for something in the nature of a compromise, and that is the group which has my sympathy. If there is insistence on the unmodified red ensign there will be a large element dissatisfied. If the three maple leaf design is imposed by this house there will also be a great many people dissatisfied. It may be contended that you can never arrive at a design which will satisfy everybody, and I agree with that contention.
However I feel that the greatest amount of satisfaction and the greatest amount of unanimity can be reached through the acceptance of a flag which is acceptable to the majority of the people in this country. I have in my hand, and I suppose most members of the house have received this little flag, a design which may be folded, composed of a red cross and a blue cross arranged on a white background, with a maple leaf superimposed over the centre. This has been suggested by one of our colleagues from the province of Quebec. Another suggestion by one of our colleagues from Quebec is a flag divided diagonally from the upper outside comer to the lower inside corner, the upper inside triangle being red and containing a small union jack-quite small, not a quarter of the flag as it is in the red ensign-and the outside triangle, being white and containing a fleur-de-lis. I am only suggesting these as possible compromise flags which would tend to satisfy everyone and which would tend to unity rather than division.
The opposition has a job to do. Under the rules and traditions of parliament it is the duty and right of the opposition to prevent the government from taking action which might not be in the best interests of the country as a whole. The official opposition believes that the procedure-and I repeat the

word procedure-being used by the government in seeking to establish a new national flag is harmful to national unity and should be abandoned in favour of a different approach. The procedure being followed amounts to an autocratic imposition on the majority of Canadians against their will, and despite their protests, of a political, unilaterally chosen, unsatisfactory, party labelled flag.
A summer recess has been offered parliament as an incentive for acceptance, and a general election has been threatened for refusal. The stubborn persistence of the government in forcing this flag issue, in the way it is forcing it, has disrupted the orderly processes of parliament, has delayed the sessional program of legislation and is degrading the image of this institution. The government's methods have failed to promote unity and have failed to bring to the people of Canada the satisfaction that can rightfully be expected through the establishment of a distinctive, acceptable national flag.
The government's methods of approach have proved a failure. Widespread dissatisfaction and disunity have been the result. The time has come to adopt a new approach to this flag problem. The new approach suggested is the abandonment of the government's nation-wrecking, unity-destroying flag resolution in its present form, in favour of a continued search for other more satisfactory flag designs, through the medium of an all party committee, with the final choice to be made through a national plebiscite or referendum.
This is not a sudden unconsidered idea on my part. On February 24 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the following question on the orders of the day as shown on page 136 of Hansard:
In view of the government's undertaking to provide the people of Canada with a distinctive national flag, has consideration been given or will consideration he given to allowing the people to make their own choice through a plebiscite or referendum from among several of the most popular designs, including the red ensign?
To which the Prime Minister replied:
All I can say at the moment, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the procedure which should be followed in this matter is that parliament certainly should be put in a position to decide for or against a particular flag. As to whether it would be desirable to have a popular referendum on this matter so that the people could choose from among a number of designs, I would like to give that matter very careful consideration before agreeing to it.
I hope that as a result of this debate the Prime Minister can see his way clear to adopting such a course.

I have searched for the judgment of others to support my contention that the government is on the wrong track and in this regard I would refer the house to an editorial, already mentioned on several occasions during this debate, which appeared in the Globe and Mail some three months ago under the heading "Collision Course". It appeared in the issue of June 2, 1964. Even three months ago the editor who wrote this article could see where the situation was leading. The first paragraph reads as follows:
In his haste to give Canada a distinctive national flag, Prime Minister Lester Pearson has set his government and the nation itself on a collision course. There is still time for him to alter it. But there is not much time.
It seemed for a while during recent weeks as though an irresistible force had met an immoveable object. Something had to give. I am relieved, as I am sure all members of this house are relieved, that the government has seen the light to the extent that the threat of an election as a result of an adverse vote in the house has been rescinded. I believe the government has greatly increased its popularity by so doing. If they are willing to go the rest of the way and adopt an allparty approach to this flag issue, I am sure their stock will rise even higher. I am asking for a new approach through an all-party committee, the final selection from among several popular designs to be reached through a plebiscite or referendum.
The editorial article to which I have referred goes on to mention four errors the Prime Minister made in the method he used to provide Canada with a distinctive national flag. The first, the article says, was in setting a time limit of two years within which the new flag was to be produced. The second was to make the flag issue a question of confidence in the government, with a threat to dissolve parliament if the proposed new flag did not gain acceptance. Hon. members will recall that the Prime Minister started out with the idea of a free vote. He later changed his mind and made the issue a question of confidence. Now he is back to a free vote. We want him to change his mind further and make a new start altogether. By doing so he would make himself, his party, and the country generally, a lot happier.
The Prime Minister's third error, in the opinion of this editorial writer, was in giving the flag issue precedence over other pressing business in this house. On June 3, the day following the appearance of this article, the right hon. gentleman outlined 38 items of
Canadian Flag
business, passage of which was required before a summer recess. The flag resolution was not even mentioned. Yet 27 days later, by June 30, when the Prime Minister announced the final five or six items of legislation that he wished completed before a summer recess could be declared, this flag resolution had assumed such importance that it dominated the whole legislative program. The question is: What happened during the month of June to give the flag resolution such importance?
There have been some interesting speculations arising out of this question. One of them is that the flag issue was deliberately injected into the program in order to create a deadlock and provide an excuse for an election. If this was so, the bluff was called by the opposition. If the government wanted an election they were offered an opportunity to have one. Responsible members of this house will not be bought off or bluffed out of doing their job according to the dictates of their consciences.
The editorial writer in the Globe and Mail listed a fourth error. He said this was the bringing in of a doublebarrelled flag resolution covering both the government's design of three maple leaves and the union jack. By skilful use of the rule book the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) got the government out of that political sand-trap. The doublebarrelled resolution would have meant defeat in the house; government supporters would not have been willing to take the chance. This so-called fourth error lends further credence to the proposition that the government, for a time at least, was inviting defeat in order to justify an election.
However that may be, the situation was all changed as of Friday last when the Prime Minister lifted the election threat from the house and declared that any vote on the flag resolution or on the amendments thereto would be entirely free.
The Globe and Mail editorial writer ends with the following conclusion:
So we could have an election on, of all issues, a national flag. In such an election, we would be saying that the party with the most popular flag was the one best fitted to run the country. Canada should not-must not-get itself into this ludicrous and dangerous situation.
This is a time for statesmanship. Mr. Pearson should call in the leaders of the four opposition parties and thresh out the whole matter with them.
I am glad to say he has done that. The article goes on:
He should attempt to find agreement to a method of proceeding with the flag resolution that, by keeping the debate within bounds, would spare

Canadian Flag
the nation from being pitchforked into an election it does not want, on an issue that would threaten national unity.
I submit that editorial articles in the newspaper having the status of the Globe and Mail are worthy of consideration and it is my view that the contents of this article make good backing for the contention that the government is on the wrong track in its search for a national flag, and that the sooner it changes its approach the better it will be for all concerned. This editorial also supports strongly the proposition that the flag should not be a unilateral party choice but should be made an all-party project. We in this party are not asking that the government abandon their search for a satisfactory flag design. We are in favour of a distinctive national flag for Canada; a statement to that effect is in our party manifesto. What we are asking for and begging for, imploring, demanding and insisting upon, Mr. Speaker, is that the government cease its unilateral party policy and adopt an all-party approach.
I submit that the government is fully aware that they are being somewhat stubborn in this matter. As proof of their stubborn attitude, consider one paragraph of the Prime Minister's speech of June 30, as reported at page 4906 of Hansard. He said:
The government has been urged to postpone the flag resolution-
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister was discussing the legislation which should be completed before a possible summer recess. This was at the time when he was suggesting there were 38 or 40 different pieces of legislation to be dealt with. He said:
The government has been urged to postpone the flag resolution, as it is obstructing other legislation and as it is, as we all admit, a measure which is controversial and arouses deep and genuine emotions. So far as obstructing other legislation is concerned, I think it is quite clear that there never will be a time when this flag issue, which is an issue of vital national importance, will not be controversial and will not interfere with other legislative proposals to which some hon. members would, for various reasons, wish to give priority over it. So, whenever this resolution would be introduced in the house there would be that difficulty.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if the government would stop being stubborn over having their own way in this matter, and would adopt an all-party approach and give up their high pressure rush, their troubles with regard to a flag would disappear and a greater measure of unity could be achieved. In spite of warnings and protests in parliament and from outside, the Prime Minister has consistently refused to alter his approach

to the flag issue. He has stated time and again in the house that the flag resolution must be carried through to a decision before a summer recess can be allowed. Well, the time is getting rather late for a summer recess; I am afraid it will have to be a Christmas recess. In his June 30 speech the Prime Minister made another statement, as is reported at page 4907 of Hansard. He was still speaking of the items of legislation which he said should be completed before a summer recess could be declared:
In any event, when the matters I have mentioned are dealt with, we shall return to the flag resolutions and the debate on those resolutions would be continued until a decision is reached on them.
He went on further to say:
The target date I should like to submit is the end of July. If we meet that target date it would be our desire and, I think, the desire of all members of the house, for parliament to recess until the middle of September.
It is rather sad to consider those words in retrospect, Mr. Speaker. Here we have the bribe and the threat; the bribe of a recess if the resolution is accepted; the threat that there would be no end to this session short of dissolution, because the Prime Minister must know full well that there are many members in this house who are not prepared to accept the proposition that a unilaterally chosen, party labelled flag shall be imposed as a national symbol on the people of Canada, against the will of a majority and despite their protests.
As further support for the suggested remedy that we are seeking in this matter, I submit the contents of a letter from 12 responsible citizens who have attained a status in their various fields of work which entitles their collective opinion to the fullest consideration. This letter is addressed to the Prime Minister under date of May 27, 1964. I believe copies of this letter were forwarded to every member of this house; at least, I received a copy. Its contents are endorsed by Dr. D. G. Creighton, professor of history at the University of Toronto; Dr. Eugene Forsey, director of research of the Canadian Labour Congress; Mrs. H. A. Dyde, of Edmonton; Dr. W. L. Morton, professor of history, University of Manitoba; Mr. T. H. B. Symons, president and vice-chancellor, Trent university; Mr. Jean Palardy, author, Montreal; Dr. Denis Smith, assistant professor of politics, Trent University; David M. Harley, barrister and solicitor, Toronto; Eric McLean, music critic, Montreal; Mr. Walter Pitman, a respected exmember of this house-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I am glad to see that some of his colleagues remember him. He is head of the history department of Kenner collegiate, Peterborough; Dr. Macgregor Parsons, Red Deer, Alberta; Mr. Scott Symons, assistant curator in charge of Canadiana Collections, Royal Ontario Museum. The letter is not long, but I fear I shall not have time to read it. I will leave it till later, Mr. Speaker, and read it if I do have time. However, I should like to put the last paragraph on the record at this time:
We respectfully suggest that you withdraw the maple leaf design for the time being, and that you convoke at once a private meeting of the parliamentary leaders of all parties to agree upon a new design which asserts our history. We profoundly believe that the present proposal will only deepen the spiritual malaise of Canada.
I consider this to be one of the finest analyses I have seen regarding the Canadian flag. I will read the rest of that letter, if there is time, before I finish. I wish to submit, as further evidence of dissatisfaction with the government's course of action, an editorial in the July 24 issue of the Montreal Gazette, which reads as follows:
Though a new Canadian flag is far from having been officially adopted, it has been flown a good deal across Canada in an unofficial way. Canadians have had the opportunity to see it as a flag, not merely as a design. And it must be said that it is a poor looking flag. Whatever may be said about the flag issue in general, this particular flag lacks life and colour; it is a drab thing, scrawny and weak.
It is not altogether surprising that the product is poor. For though Canada has had years to contemplate designs for flags, the particular design selected by the government in the end was drawn in a curious crash program.
The designers did their work in nine hectic days. The flag that won the cabinet's approval (with slight later changes) was that of a retired commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, who regards himself as an enthusiastic amateur in the field of heraldry. He worked, as he says, "with one eye closed from 10.30 at night until shortly after 1.30 in the morning."
The design shows rather sadly the one-eyed rush and fatigue with which it was conceived. Not even those most enthusiastic for a new flag have been able to show an equal enthusiasm about the design proposed. These three scratchy maple leaves, dying on a severed stem, have been flown enough already, in an unofficial way, to make clear that they can respond to even a bracing breeze with nothing but a dismal flap.
Mr. Speaker, that is a further indication in a responsible newspaper editorial, as evidenced by the policy of that newspaper, that the present proposed flag does not command the unanimity and the sympathy of the people of this country.
Canadian Flag
I have received hundreds of letters on this flag issue, as I expect have all members of this house. Hundreds of these letters from Legion groups, the daughters of the empire, Canadian corps associations, women's institutes and others are in favour of the red ensign. Hundreds of other letters are in favour of the government's flag and other designs.
I am opposed to allowing the government to continue on a course of action which will tend to divide the people of Canada into two groups, and then to chose between them in such a way that for generations to come one half of the people of Canada will have bitter feelings towards the other half.
The government's proposal will not bring unity, but discord, and there is no sound reason why they should continue to follow such a policy in such a rush. I believe that a flag design can be chosen through the employment of the proposed methods, which will be more acceptable to all, and in the choice of which there will be no winners and no losers, and from which will result national unity rather than division.
In dealing with the flag issue this house is playing for keeps. I should like to stress that fact, Mr. Speaker. If we discard the red ensign and what might be a compromise flag, and the present resolution succeeds in passing this house, as it appears it will at this stage if there is a vote, we will not be able to undo what we will have done. If we take a sensible attitude we will not be able to undo our actions because we cannot have a new flag every time the government changes. I repeat, no amount of effort, expense, trouble or time should be allowed to stand in the way of the choice of a flag which will be acceptable and tend to unify this country. I think it is possible to find such a design if we adopt an all party approach and let the people make their own choice. For that reason I am in support of the principle of the subamendment as well as, I may say, part of the amendment and part of the resolution.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on some of the remarks made by several hon. members who have preceded me in this debate. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who dealt with the history of the maple leaf both in France and during the last war.
I remember being ordered toward the end of the last war to wear the maple leaf insignia on my tunic. If my memory serves me

Canadian Flag
correctly only certain troops were instructed to wear that insignia, and those were army troops such as ordnance and supply. I do not believe that the members of regiments who formed the fighting force were ordered to wear the maple leaf patch. When the troops who were ordered to wear this patch saw the design there was an expression of disgust, distaste and annoyance. The patches consisted of a golden maple leaf within a dark circle, to be worn on the shoulder. They were considered to be very ugly in design, and I remember that we could not understand why we should be forced to wear them. I am sure they were worn only because of a threat of military punishment. There was such resentment that quite a long time after the order was issued, at a party in the officers' mess at headquarters, a senior officer pointed out to a brigadier that practically none of his officers were wearing this insignia on their uniforms as required. I assure you there was a good deal of trouble about this situation, and one result was a parade at eight o'clock the following morning of the entire officer group of that unit. I presume this parade was held in an attempt to make sure that the maple leaf patch was worn on the tunics of those officers. I might add, that unit was the largest in the Canadian army.
Mr. Speaker, I point out these facts to give some indication of the reaction to the order requiring these particular army troops to wear that maple leaf insignia. I remembered this situation again only when the hon. member for "Winnipeg South Centre referred to the maple leaf insignia being used for various purposes at various times.
It is perhaps because I grew up in western Canada that I cannot understand why the maple leaf is supposed to be significant and emblematic of Canada. The use of the insignia to which I referred was introduced only late in the last war, and only to a limited degree. So far as the outfit, to which I was attached, is concerned, it met with nothing less than resentment.
It was a pleasure to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre describe the use of the maple leaf to indicate wartime truck routes. I have never before heard anyone attempt to twist the meaning and acceptance of the use of the maple leaf insignia during the last war into a suggestion that there was a great demand for its use by Canadian troops. I have never heard the significance of the use of that insignia by Canadian troops referred to as a demand for the replacement

of our national flag by a flag including that particular design.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the great propaganda campaign, and the attempt to stir up the feelings of Canadian people by misrepresentation, as well as the attempt to minimize the agitation that has been created, I feel it is essential to bring these misrepresentations to light whenever an opportunity presents itself.
I was much intrigued by the remarks of the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean), and I must say I have a good deal of respect for that hon. member. He certainly spoke with conviction. However, I think it is incredible that a man of his age will state, as did some other members in the far left corner of this chamber, that we should not consider the past at all but only look to the future. If any member asks, what is Canada today, I am sure the answer can only be found in our history, those things that Canada has done, the opportunities that have been given to people in this country, the actions that Canadians as individuals and as a nation have taken throughout the years. Canada is a land with a reputation for upholding its end in international obligations, but we have to look at history to see that we have taken our share in world conflicts and world conferences and have made our time, money and resources available to help others.
I certainly hope the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean) is not suggesting that we should not look back and recall these things when somebody asks what Canada is today. I think it would be a betrayal of every soldier who ever fought with distinction in a Canadian uniform to say that we should not look back if the question is asked, what is Canada. If it is not the sacrifices of those men who fought in two world wars, the Korean war and the South African war, if our history of valour on the field of battle and in defence of democracy is not a part of present day Canada, then I do not know what is.
Certainly those who say we should only look to the future must have their tongues in their cheeks. Canada's future is bright and promising but it has been made so only because of the achievements of the past. I suggest that the hon. member for Charlotte and others who are taking a specious look at the question and saying we should forget the past and look only to the future have no idea how to look to the future. They have not, unless they take into consideration what our parliamentary institutions are based on, what our history of democracy and our system of justice mean. Unless they look to the past and understand

it they have no conception of the manner in which we should proceed in the future. _
In the thinking of some hon. members who say that a new flag is something of the future and that we should quit looking at the past,
I suggest we can put our finger on one of the misconceptions that may have caused this house and the whole country so much trouble in considering the question of whether we should now change our national flag completely. I should not have to remind members that there have been instances such as in Germany during the 1930's when there has been a failure to realize what the system of democracy is based on. Spurious claims and some flag waving were made use of to divert the attention of the people of that country from the lessons of the past, with the result that they lost their democracy. If those who resist most strongly a change in our national flag base their argument solely on the premise that the union jack and the red ensign stand for our history of democratic government, for the achievement of our nationhood and as a reminder of our parliamentary system and our system of justice, and take the stand that it is necessary to keep these reminders in front of us in order that people like the hon. member for Charlotte will not forget the importance of the past, then I think we have an almost undefeatable argument.
I must say that since the flag debate first began I have resented the efforts made in the house and throughout the country to say that we have no flag. Efforts have been made to say that the red ensign is not distinctive and that it has never really been Canada's flag. I thought the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) did the house and the country a real service when he pointed out in his speech that the red ensign has in fact been Canada's national flag for 100 years. For the life of me I cannot understand why some members keep saying in this debate that we must get a national flag. Certainly the question is whether we now want to change our national flag, and the more people say we must get one the more they are adding to that type of propaganda which has been foisted upon the people to mislead them into thinking that Canada does not now have a national flag.
I have just been home for a week end, for a change, and had a chance to speak to quite a group of people. It was one of the largest gatherings I have attended since I came here in January, and after such a long while I found it most refreshing to have a chance to hear people speak very bluntly and simply about what is going on in this chamber these
Canadian Flag
days, express their feelings about the flag debate and about whether they want a new flag, or the present flag changed. I am not going to pretend there is anything like unanimity on this matter. I believe that the strongest feeling throughout the country is: Why is parliament fooling around with the flag? Why does it not get on with the business? I think that is a fair summation of the majority feeling that I encountered at home.
There are quite a number who do not become vehement about the red ensign or the new flag and who in fact care very little about the matter, except to the extent that the present argument may disrupt the country. These people cannot understand why the subject has been brought up now. They cannot understand why it has taken so much time and why other business has not been proceeded with. I think there are some questions that the government owes it to the country to answer. I have talked to other members and I find that the situation in my constituency is not much different from that in other constituencies. Certainly the newspapers reflect the situation to quite an extent. I would say there is a general feeling across the country that the flag debate is interfering with more important business and there is an inability to understand why this is so.
I have asked the Prime Minister before, as have other hon. members, to explain why it is necessary that the flag debate should go through to a conclusion now. We have had the red ensign for 100 years. Certainly there is no doubt in the minds of most members of the house that, improperly handled, this subject can do more to destroy unity in this country than any other action of this or previous governments. Why then must it be rammed through with such haste? If those people who are so desirous of having a national flag and who put all the pressure they can on the government really want one that much, if it means that much to them, then it should be so important to them that they would not begrudge the time necessary to make sure that it is done properly and that the matter is handled in such a manner that it will bring credit, not only on any new national flag but on the people who support it and on the manner in which it was introduced.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I know if I were one of those who desired to get rid of the red ensign-and there is a certain group in this country who do not care what the new flag is as long as it is not the red ensign and has no union jack on it-I am sure I would say.

Canadian Flag
let us make sure we put this over in such a way that it will not be resented; it must stand for a feeling of unity in the country; it must be a unifying force. We do not want it taken as a symbol of our dissatisfaction or as evidence of political opportunism. There is no reason I can see, therefore, and I would be only too happy if the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or some member of the government would explain to me where my thinking is wrong, why there must be such haste in acting on this matter.
It could be allowed to sit for a while or referred to a committee. Let everyone have a full opportunity to discuss it. Let us have the various groups throughout the country appear before the committee if they so desire. Let us take it slowly, by stages, and make sure that there is no suggestion of political partisanship. Let us make sure that every faction has its feelings satisfied, to this extent at least, that it has had a full, fair and impartial hearing. There is no injustice that rankles so much as that which results from a feeling that the right to be heard has been denied. There is no punishment meted out in the courts which causes people to become hardened criminals more quickly than the suggestion that they have been denied a fair hearing. I submit that any member who wants a new flag, who wants to do away completely with any suggestion of our present flag and substitute another, must support that line of reasoning.
I resent the suggestion that those of us who prefer the red ensign are just stalling. I am not standing here speaking in the hope that I will put off the evil day, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, when I say that I prefer the red ensign I am aware of the fact that if an election were called my preference would not be shared by a majority of Canadians. There are some who would not want the red ensign in its present form. I am quite willing to go along with a change in that regard. I hope if there is going to be a change in our national flag that change would not be so drastic as to erase all the symbols that I should like to see on our flag to indicate our heritage. However, Mr. Speaker, I will accept that if it is the wish of the people. I do not believe I am so different from those people I represent who would resent not having their voice heard. I will even put up with taking away the red ensign. I will put up with taking away any symbols of our past.
I would even put up with the proposed flag, provided it resulted from the choice of the majority of the people of this country and 
provided it were brought about in a manner that would satisfy all sections of the populace. I would put up with it if all reasonable designs and reasonable suggestions were considered and if parliament was striving its utmost to keep politics out of it.
If this new flag were arrived at in such a way that it would be obvious from the manner in which this house handled it that all these considerations had been taken care of, and that once the new flag had been adopted it would serve to unify the country, then I could accept it. It should of course show respect for history and for the future of our country. I hope I am not being too repetitious, but I have said in this house before that what a new flag is most likely to stand for, if it is a complete departure from the old one, is a feeling of the manner, the method and the time at which it was introduced. I suggested that had there been a national catastrophe and had we changed governments and a flag had been introduced at that time, then most people would, for some time to come at least, associate the new flag with that national catastrophe. I have suggested before that when there is no previous association with the design that is being offered on the flag, then it becomes of importance to see that the method by which it is introduced evokes only happy memories, memories of respect by one part of the country for another.
I have perhaps dwelt long enough, Mr. Speaker, on the method by which a flag is selected. We are speaking on the subamendment now, on the questions that should be put in a referendum. I should like to deal rather briefly with the questions on the referendum; however, I see it is now six o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of standing order 3 9A, it is my duty to inform the house that questions to be raised at 10.30 are as follows:
The hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard):

Agriculture-feed grain for eastern Canada [Text]
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


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


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate those voices shouting "carried, carried" before you called order. I am sure they were referring to the remarks I made when we adjourned at supper time. It is my fervent hope that they have now seen reason, and they are suggesting to me that the trained seals on the government back benches are now going to recant and reflect the views of their constituencies and the responsible views of a member of parliament, instead of following the views of those members of the Liberal party who think in terms of the adhesion or cohesion of the Liberal party rather than the serious question affecting the house in this debate.
I think at six o'clock I had just mentioned the subamendment, the matter of the national referendum or plebiscite, and the questions which should appear in that referendum. I should say at the outset that I am not in entire agreement with the subamendment and I cannot really understand the form in which it is presented. In this subamendment on the question of a national flag as it should be put to the people of Canada we have the red ensign as it is, and the red ensign as it might be amended with some relationship to other ethnic groups in our country. Then we also have that peculiar monstrosity presented to the house by the government as a projected flag, and we also have a one maple leaf design.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not at all averse to a national referendum in which people may have a broad choice, but I am totally unable to accept the
Canadian Flag
proposition that in that national referendum this Pearson pennant, as we have known the three maple leaf design proposed by the government, should take equal precedence with the flag that has been so proudly Canada's for 100 years. To me this is preposterous, and I would not be so vehement about it unless it had failed in every requisite that one would think of in connection with a national flag.
It has not been arrived at by any process that the people of this country would like to think would be associated with a flag that represents them. It does not represent the people of this country. It was brought in as a political manoeuvre, presented in that manner and sustained only in any sense of the word because of the political implications behind it. To suggest a national referendum, where that sort of a pennant would take equal precedence with the flag that is so revered and treasured by such a large percentage of the people in this country, is to me just out of keeping with our responsibilities to this country.
I may say that if that flag had anything about it that is artistically pleasing, perhaps I would find some excuse. If I thought that as other than a political gimmick it was attractive even to the members from Quebec,
I might not resent it so much. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot forget the spectacle of the members of the Creditiste group coming into the house one day, each of them with a little pennant on his desk. That was the flag referred to earlier today by one of my colleagues, red and white with a green maple leaf, divided diagonally between red and white. I must say I do not pretend to be an artist. In this, as in other respects, I am an ordinary citizen of my community where art is concerned; but to me, if we are going to have a flag which is not everything a flag should represent, then at least it should have the advantage of having a pleasing appearance.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) took the trouble on behalf of a group in his constituency-I believe the sons of Norway, who are plugging that same flag-to bring a copy of it around to every member of the house, and I will say it had the distinction of being very attractive. It was not a muddied up or muddled up flag such as that which the government suggests.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a man, woman or child in this country who would not like our flag to be at least, if not beautiful, then presentable. This cannot be

Canadian Flag
said for the three leafed monstrosity that this unartistic government presents to us. If I, in pursuance of the question of what should be in the referendum to be submitted to the people, can describe the so-called Pearson pennant, as I am sure it is known across the country, I would say the first thing it brings to mind is a presently noted song. Perhaps it is not too respectable but it deals with the subject of General Jubilation T. Cornpone. I think it is a take-off of a Li'l Abner character, a general who fought all the famous battles, described as Cornpone's anguish, Cornpone's humiliation, Cornpone's defeat, Cornpone's disgrace and Cornpone's retreat. If the government is really suggesting, or if any member of the house wants to put that pennant on a national referendum on the same basis as our revered red ensign, I can only say that I think my reaction will not be too different from that of so many people in this country who listen to the radio or television occasionally and who have some imagination.
To me, this proposed flag with a blue border at each end and three red maple leaves in the centre on a white background sounds like an emblem of that great general, Jubilation T. Cornpone about whom the song was written. The Canadian public cannot be blamed for associating this proposed flag with the political record of the Liberal party. The first blue bar represents the first disgrace which the party suffered-the 60 days of decision. Then, in keeping with General Cornpone's military career, which was a complete failure, we come to Cornpone's humiliation. The first little red maple leaf represents that famous budget-the budget which was put forward and subsequently revised. I am sure this is what is going through the minds of the people of Canada when they look at this pennant. The second maple leaf represents something else-the much heralded pension plan. I am sure all members have heard about Cornpone's defeat. I have in mind the first time this pension plan was brought in, and the manner in which it was presented. The government said: You will take this plan because we presented it; it must be the greatest. The Liberals presented this flag resolution in the same way, though you would never know it today. I can see how the people of Canada will associate the proposed pennant with these events.
General Cornpone, as we all know, had a famous retreat. Talking about a retreat, what happened to the redistribution bill? The Liberals had a great idea. A member of the New

Democratic party suggested a slight amendment. The Liberals went along because the N.D.P. wanted it. Then they found the official opposition would have no part of it. Where is the redistribution bill now? We had thought, from some of the opinions expressed in this house, that the Liberals had really wanted to correct some of the anomalies in the representation of constituencies in this House of Commons. Where is the bill now? Cornpone's retreat.
If this flag were ever accepted by Canada, the last blue bar would represent the most shameful thing of all. It would represent the division caused in this country by the political machinations of the present government in treating as a mere political tool something which is sacred to so many people. What colour is the background to all this? It is the white background of surrender-the surrender of every ideal known to members of this house on the altar of political expediency. Yet members across the way want us to accept this design and consider it in our minds on the same basis as the red ensign, which has represented everything in Canada which we think is worth fighting for and worth retaining.
I suggest the first sign of sense shown in connection with this whole debate is that the Prime Minister is now prepared to consider another course of action. I cannot understand why the right hon. gentleman does not do his thinking before he acts. We in this house have seen so many reversals, so many somersaults, so many withdrawals of ideas, that the one question in the mind of each one of us and of people right across the country is: Why in heaven's name, don't they think a little before bringing these things forward?
When the Prime Minister first introduced this resolution he had in mind that there would be a free vote. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Watson) has put the evidence on record. It was only after the right hon. gentleman's political henchman got to him that he changed his mind. These men, working behind the scenes, said: Look, this is how we can win so many votes from this group or that. So he changed his mind and some days later he said the government would stand or fall on the resolution. Now, after all this time, the Prime Minister has found that the people are asking: Why should the flag issue have priority? Is it not worth a close, careful and even lengthy scrutiny by parliament? Does the government have no legislation which is urgent or important and which needs to be discussed? These are the questions

being asked in the country. The people have asked them long enough and hard enough for the message finally to sink through to the Prime Minister, and he has retreated to the position which, I submit, he should have taken in the first place.
I believe that when he first introduced this legislation the Prime Minister really believed that it should not be a party matter. Those of us in this house who are aware of the right hon. gentleman's record have never considered him to be a politician, first. I have never considered him to be a statesman, but at least he was a diplomat. As a man who in diplomatic negotiations had to put Canada first, his first thought when he brought in this resolution was for the good of Canada. Then the Liberal politicians got to him. We all know the Liberal politicians. They are people who can sell a lie ten times as fast as a Liberal can tell the truth. They are afraid of the truth because they might not be able to sell it. But I think the truth has finally sunk into the mind of the Prime Minister and even into the minds of those tremendous politicians who belong to his cabinet. They have finally come to realize that to play politics with a symbol such as our national flag, even though it means different things to different groups, is dividing this nation and causing such rifts-


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


Reynold Rapp: I realize that it is my duty to speak for the second time on the Canadian flag. The first time I spoke on the subject was on May 28, 1963, during the debate on the address.
Before I begin to speak on this resolution or, rather, on the subamendment, I think I might draw attention to what my dictionary has to say regarding the definition of the word "flag". It says: "A piece of cloth of bunting upon which, usually, some device is placed, used as a standard or ensign". But to me, Mr. Speaker, the important question is not so much what a flag looks like but what it stands for; what it stood for in the past and what it will stand for in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Reynold Rapp: I am speaking from personal experience in this regard. I may be the only member in this house who has lived under the hammer and sickle, and I know what this flag stood for and what it will stand for in the future. I also realized before I came to
Canadian Flag
Canada some 35 years ago what the Canadian flag stood for. But much more important to me was what it would stand for in the future. I raised a family, and I know what some of these young people had to go through in countries where freedom is not interpreted in the same way that we interpret it here. I am referring to countries in which schools were used to indoctrinate young people with communistic ideas, with nazi ideas. You can understand, Mr. Speaker, what this flag meant to me and what it still means to me. You will understand how I feel when, as a parent, I see the union jack flying over a school. I and parents like me know this will not be a school in which our children will be indoctrinated with these ideas; that this is a school in which freedom is taught and where freedom means something.
It is not my only duty, Mr. Speaker, to tell you what I had to go through and what this flag means to me; but as the member representing the riding of Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale it is also my duty to speak on behalf of my constituents. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not follow their advice and put forward representations on their behalf. I have received many letters on this question. The resolution which was introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), which was responsible for my receiving these letters, reads as follows:
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 on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. More.
I would like to read some of the letters I have received from my constituents, and in particular from Legions in my area.


Marcel Lessard: Dispense.


Reynold Rapp: I received a telegram from the Sylvania Legion which says:
The Sylvania branch No. 54 of the Canadian Legion goes on record favouring the red ensign as the official flag of Canada.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not act on behalf of the people in my riding, after they have elected me three times, and bring their views before the attention of the house and this government. I also received a letter from the Leroy and Melfort branch of the Canadian Legion stating that they were in favour of

Canadian Flag
retaining the red ensign as our national flag. I could go on and on in this respect; there have been similar letters from other branches of the Legion. As I said in my previous speech on this subject, the Prime Minister has introduced this new design that is not one of which the people of Canada will approve. I have received many, many letters and many telegrams to this effect from various organizations. At the time when there was not a member representing Saskatoon one lady asked me to put forward her view and the view of her group that the red ensign should be retained as the Canadian flag.
Why should there be a new Canadian flag, Mr. Speaker? Why should this new design have been introduced in the way it was? Why was it not declared during the election campaign that a new . Canadian flag would be introduced into parliament? I and my opponents had many joint meetings. At those meetings not one of my opponents mentioned that the Liberal party intended to put before parliament a new Canadian flag. Certainly some time after the election it was said that their Prime Minister had stated that within two years a Canadian flag would be approved; but so many of these Liberal promises were made during the election campaign and we have heard nothing more about them since this government took office. If these other promises cannot be kept, why is this flag resolution so necessary? However, Mr. Speaker, believing in democracy as I do, I think there are ways and means of arriving at a solution in respect of our flag. As I say, a flag is not just a bunting; it represents much more than that.
If the house agrees, a compromise could be made. There could be set up a committee composed of representatives of all parties. However, I would be opposed to this if the committee were instructed to discuss only the flag introduced by the Prime Minister, because if this were the case that flag would be nothing but a political flag; nor would I like to see any other flag introduced by the government. The committee should be empowered to recommend a flag and have it approved by the house. Mention was made of a 15-man committee. The composition of the committee was also mentioned as being seven from the Liberal party, five from the official opposition, and one each from the other opposition parties. I think that the report or recommendation from the committee to the house should not be that of just a majority of the committee, but it should be approved by the house. There is nothing unusual about

such a committee. We have a similar situation at the United Nations, where the Russians have the power of veto which they requested. The reason for this is that the rest of the members of the United Nations are democratic or more or less democratic couretries, while Russia is a communist country, and if any question was decided by a majority vote, there is no question about it that the Russian government would lose out every time.
Mr. Speaker, I am very sincere, as I am sure are other members who have spoken before me, when I suggest that the resolution presently before the house involves a political issue. I think the flag issue should be taken out of this chamber and referred to a parliamentary committee, which may come to a conclusion in respect of a Canadian national flag which can no longer be called or referred to as the flag of the Liberal party, a flag of the Conservative party, a flag of the N.D.P. or a flag of the Social Credit party. I am sure most members will agree that a decision made by an all-party committee will not be considered as a decision of a political nature.
Mr. Speaker, I have not been home since the resolution now before us was presented to the house, but I do know the tenor of thought in my constituency. I have received a great number of letters expressing a desire to retain the red ensign rather than to adopt the flag proposed by this government. The general trend of expression in these letters is in favour of this issue being decided by referendum. I have received several letters from people who live in my own home town, which express a desire for me to return and report on the progress of this flag debate. Many of these letters have perhaps been precipitated by the reading of the copies of Hansard I have sent to my constituents. They have asked me to explain the lack of speeches made by members of political parties other than Conservative, and have expressed some astonishment at the absence of speeches of Liberal members. I agree with this opinion and suggest that those on the opposite side of this house should stand in their places and either support the flag proposed by the government or express a contrary point of view. I must report to all hon. members that my constituents do not appreciate the attitude adopted by those members in favour of the proposed design who pretend by acquiescence to be in favour of that flag. I suggest that they should stand and be heard.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the subamendment, I suggest that if the committee proposed therein cannot come to something approximating a unanimous decision, the national flag for Canada should be decided by plebiscite. Such a plebiscite should include questions similar to those proposed by the subamendment. I would certainly like to see these two questions proposed on any plebiscite: Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign? Are you in favour of a distinctively Canadian flag embodying the three maple leaf design?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Reynold Rapp: I know you all say "yes", but why do you not get up on your feet and take part in this debate?
Mr. Speaker, perhaps a third question should be included in a plebiscite to this effect: Are you in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag? I think those three questions should be included in any plebiscite presented to the people.
I am very disappointed that in Canada today there is a question being raised about a change in the Canadian flag. Thousands and thousands, and perhaps millions of Canadians have come to Canada from foreign lands. Many of these people realize that the countries which they left adopted ensigns other than those of tradition, such as the swastika, but were left with something emblematic of a dictatorial power. Flags such as the red ensign have great histories. Our soldiers have fought several wars under the red ensign. To ignore the requests of these veterans to retain it, and that which is symbolized by it, is to ignore the sympathies of the majority of Canadians. I think the sympathies of these people who have fought in wars on behalf of Canada should be given full and thorough consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to one very short letter I received from a South African war veteran. This man is not one of my constituents but lives in the province of British Columbia and has not authorized me to disclose his name. He is a very outspoken gentleman and has said that when he enlisted as a young man for service in the South African war he did so under the emblem of Canada. He has lived his life since in Canada under the red ensign, and he states that in his senior years his heart bleeds at any suggestion that Canada abandon the red ensign as its national flag.
Mr. Speaker, I could spend another 30 minutes reading portions of letters and telegrams I have received from individuals who
Canadian Flag
wish to voice an opinion in respect of any flag to be adopted by Canada. However, in conclusion I must state that I think it is my privilege and duty, as it is of every other member of parliament, to stand up in this chamber and express the views of the people I represent in respect of the retention of the Canadian red ensign. In spite of my own feelings, I think those members of this House of Commons who favour the three maple leaf flag design, or any other design, should stand up and express that feeling. These members were not sent to parliament to remain in their seats, silent, but to take part in debates of this kind, whether emotionally charged or not.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Albert Horner (The Balllefords):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because it involves something that affects every Canadian citizen. It involves a subject which every Canadian should have the right to discuss, and concerning which he should express an opinion. In view of the dissension between the two founding races, this matter should be allowed to remain in abeyance until the emotional factor has died down. Once the flag resolution has been voted on the matter will be over and done with, and if careful planning and consideration is not given to both points of view, the ties that have bound these two peoples so closely may be broken for all time.
Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) I must say I am in favour, because I feel it outlines the proper procedure to be followed in respect of an issue such as this. If at the outset the flag issue had been introduced to this house in such a way as suggested by the subamendment, I am sure emotionalism would have been absent from the debate.
Before continuing I should like to say that I support the red ensign, I am sure I speak for the majority of my constituents, who represent every nationality in the world and live in perfect harmony. These people set an example to be followed by people all over the world.
Many people of Ukrainian origin live in my constituency, and I cannot agree more with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), than when he stated that he came from people who believe in tradition and do not throw tradition out the window when it has served its usefulness. These people respect the traditions of people of other nationalities. They feel strongly about the union jack and red ensign.

Canadian Flag
These people are proud and hardy people who were not afraid to settle in some of the remote areas of our country. These are the people who, when the chips are down, were not afraid to answer their adopted country's call. The same can be said, Mr. Speaker, for Ukrainians, the Rumanians, the Dutch, the Germans, the Scandinavians, the Polish, the Russians, people from Greece and France, in fact, all these people from wherever they came. This country was the country of their choice, a land of freedom, a land of opportunity.
Again, we have the Doukhobors of Russian origin who, I am proud to say, are my neighbours at home and who, because of their religious beliefs and their refusal to bear arms, were persecuted in their own land under the Czarist regime. They came to this country and found their way of life, of toil and peace. These people are the people who today, sir, are some of the best farmers, lawyers, doctors, teachers and engineers. They have excelled in any profession they chose and they were able to achieve this under our flag. Do you think these people would want to see the Christian crosses stripped from our flag? The same can be said for the other minority groups who have also played their part in the development of this country.
People of every nationality have developed our country and have had some part in our heritage. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, can you honestly see the fairness in taking away from a majority in order to satisfy a minority?
We talk about the two founding races. What about our Indian people who were forgotten by the Liberal government? It took the Conservative government under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to give them some of the recognition they deserved-representation in the Senate, the franchise, the right to better education and better housing. These people were not a bit backward in answering their country's call in time of need, and the ones I have talked to are in favour of the red ensign.
This three maple leaves flag design is the choice of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), a Prime Minister who is the leader of a minority party and who acts like he was the leader of a party with a great majority, a man who was a Nobel peace prize winner and who is now acting like a dictator. He has said: This is my design, my flag, the one you will accept or face an election. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the thought of an election struck fear into the Liberal party, with their many unfulfilled promises of the 1963 campaign when the flag

was hardly mentioned; and of course this also shook some of the members of the other three parties so that many of them jumped into line.
How about the way this flag was chosen? I read that the Prime Minister had invited a group of reporters to his home and when they arrived they found the Prime Minister waiting for them and nursing a scotch and soda. Drinks and sandwiches were then served. I am not a drinking man and maybe this flag looks better after you have had a few drinks. Maybe some of my hon. friends opposite have viewed it in that light. Finally, after looking at many designs, the Prime Minister picked up the flag with the three maple leaves and said, "This is it, this is my design", just like a president of a company calling in his salesmen, introducing a new product to them and saying: Here it is, get out and sell it. I will not say whether they all did but some have tried, I think without too much success. So some reporters have turned on the Conservative party and have blamed them for carrying on a filibuster, which we all know could not be further from the truth.
If the Prime Minister and the group he leads-apparently it is not a party any more- are afraid to let the people of Canada speak out for themselves on this issue, then I am going to speak out for what I am sure the majority of my constituents want, and I do not care whether it takes four days, four weeks or four months. Twice in a generation men were prepared to give four years of their blood and sweat, and in many cases their lives, in order to fight for the freedom for which our flag stands. Then the Prime Minister goes to Winnipeg as a guest speaker at the Royal Canadian Legion convention and unfurls his three maple leaves flag design. What alternative did those Legion members have but to boo and heckle this so-called flag? This was the only way they could show their disapproval of his choice.
Unlike some members I did not send out a questionnaire to my constituents but I did receive many letters, all of them supporting the red ensign, not one supporting the Pearson political pennant. When the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) referred to the Liberal campaign literature containing their election promises, there was no mention made of the flag. Why was this contentious issue dragged into this session like a cat being dragged backwards by the tail? Was it to cover up for all the other legislation that was not ready, for instance, the Canada pension plan, the legislation based on the report of

the MacPherson royal commission on transportation and the legislation to assist Canadian magazines based on the O'Leary report, just to mention a tew?
During the last campaign, meetings were held with all the different party representatives present. I do not think my Liberal opponent mentioned the flag but he did talk about $2 a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat and $3 a bushel for the first 300 bushel unit. He talked about two ministers of agriculture, one for eastern Canada and one for western Canada. This was also promised by the Prime Minister when he was campaigning in the prairie provinces. I do not know what he said in British Columbia but apparently from what we have heard from the other side of the house and from the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) regarding the Fraserview homes for veterans, it is fine to make promises when you are in opposition but you should not be expected to carry them out when your party is elected as a government and you are a minister of the crown. I would not think my Liberal opponent in the last election would walk into any of the Legion branches in my constituency and say, "I think we will take down the red ensign and replace it with the three maple leaves flag".
Look at the way the flag issue has been introduced. Is this the action of a man who cares? I think not, Mr. Speaker. Instead it is the action of a dictatorial prime minister, an arrogant, bureaucratic and careless government. After all, there are 10 provinces in Canada, so why not call a meeting of the representatives of the provinces and have them decide on a design they could all accept instead of having some of them flying the red ensign, some the union jack and others flying something else?
I do not have to tell hon. members that people are becoming very flag conscious these days. When I was home I attended fairs in my constituency. I could not help but notice that in the parades practically every float had a flag, some of them four or five, and I did not see one Pearson flag. The flags were the red ensign and the union jack. I think people are beginning to realize that something is going to be taken away from them. In western Canada we are not flag wavers but we do believe in what our flag stands for and nobody is going to take that away.
People have talked about the blood that flows in their veins in this house. I will tell you the kind of blood that flows in my veins. It is Irish on both sides, and if the Prime Minister thinks he is going to ram this flag 20220-459
Canadian Flag
down my throat he has got another think coming. When I went home in the early part of June at the time the flag issue was first mentioned people said to me: What is the matter with you members? You are getting $18,000 a year and you are wasting time discussing the flag. Have you not got something better to discuss? But when I told them what it was all about they changed and said: Do not let them take our flag.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Albert Ralph Horner: Why do hon. members over there not get up and speak?
There was only one man, the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), who had the courage to stand up yesterday and say where he stood. I do not believe his constituency is too much different from some of the others in Toronto. I would say to some hon. members opposite, "Enjoy yourselves, because it is later than you think." Why do not hon. members opposite want to let this question go to the people? If they are so sure they are right and the majority of the people are with them, let the question go to the people. If the people decide that this is the flag they want, then that is fine; I will accept it. However, I will never accept the manner in which the Prime Minister is attempting to ram this flag through this house.
I should like to refer to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis)-that is a good portfolio for him, because I never heard him say anything in this house. I want to tell him that they are going to be looking for Liberal candidates in my constituency. He can come out there to run and bring his 100,000 flag stickers-


Mr. Dupuis:: Do you want some?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -that will assure my re-election.
No, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what hon. members opposite would like. I can say that my remarks are going to affect some members in the third, fourth and fifth parties. They would have liked to have shoved this flag question through quietly, then have a recess. They could have gone away for a couple of months and come back smiling and tanned, hoping the people had forgiven and forgotten. I do not believe it is going to work that way.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would again suggest that this issue should be referred to a committee, as has been suggested, in order that a design may be brought forward which

Canadian Flag
would be acceptable to all. I hope that it would be a design that would unite and not divide.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose there is any other member in this house or at least not very many of the members in this house, who have caused you as little bother as I have. I do not speak very often in the house. I have been here longer than most of you, and I always thought I could learn a lot more by sitting in my seat and listening to others than by talking. I have learned all I know by listening to others. I did not rise very quickly a few minutes ago because I was expecting perhaps we would get a speech from the other side of the house. I would be content to sit down and let anybody speak in my place. As a matter of fact, the only reason I am taking part in this debate is because of the fact I represent a riding that has instructed me to speak for it.
I have received a lot of mail, but I am not going to bother reading it to you. I received a lot a petitions signed by hundreds of people who favour the red ensign. I am speaking tonight because I favour the red ensign and I believe at least three quarters of the people in Canada favour the red ensign. Why the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) insists on making us take this flag, regardless of whether or not we want it, is more than I can understand. The Prime Minister was appointed- he was not elected, he was appointed by the Governor General-to the highest position any man in Canada can hold. As such, he is supposed to be a statesman. He cannot run Canada with one province; he has to have support from all the provinces of this country. I cannot understand anyone who would offer us a flag without giving us a choice. Then he said that there would not be a free vote and if we voted against the flag there would be an election. I, for one, would welcome an election on the flag issue. However, I would not welcome it in so far as the unity of the country is concerned because it would split the country wide open.
I have been here for a long time. I have never quarrelled with anybody. I have been able to get along with the French, the same as I do with the English. I have a French community in my riding. I never got one letter from those fellows, and they are fine fellows, just as good as any others in my riding. I never got one letter from the French in my riding insisting on this new flag. I have received a lot of letters from the people in my riding and with the exception of two,

all those letters favour the red ensign. The two letters did not oppose the red ensign but wanted something added to it. As I said before, I am a red ensign man. I do not want to say anything tonight that will offend anybody else. I do not think that is the way we should go about this matter. There has been enough acrimony in this debate, and I do not want to add any more. We have been able to get along in this country for years without quarrelling, so surely in this enlightened day and age we will be able to get along for the next hundred years without having any interruption.
I was rather surprised when the leader of the separatists at the other end of this room said one day that he would welcome a revolution in Quebec. I think that was a terrible thing to say.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The leader of the Creditistes at the other end of the room. I heard him say it because I was in the house when he said it. I think that is a terrible thing to say. Whenever there has been a revolution in another country, there has been a lot of bloodshed. If that is what you want, a lot of bloodshed, well I understand a lot of blood was spilled over this carpet yesterday when I was not here. We cannot stir people up emotionally, and this is an emotional issue, so the best thing to do is to be careful of what you say. You should not stir up somebody else who may be more emotional than you are yourself. I am one of those whose temper can be aroused, too, but I do not like to quarrel with anybody. I like to get along with people. I think the fact I have been here for so many years is the result of my ability to get along with men, and women too, for that matter.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I have often said that I never saw a horse that I could not drive. A horse is not much different from a man, and there are some of them to whom you have to give a good licking in order to get along with them. There are some men you cannot get along with either, unless you give them a good licking. I believe in the old style; I believe in cracking down on a man who won't mind his own business. I believe that very often the old laws we had years and years ago are more effective than the laws they have now.
However, I do not intend to take too much of the time of the house tonight. The last

speaker brought out many of the points I intended to bring out, so I do not intend to repeat them. The hon. lady member from Northumberland (Miss Jewett)-I do not see her in the house at the moment-made a statement when she was speaking on the flag issue two or three weeks ago. She said that she was appealing to fellow M.P.'s to disregard their own personal preference for a flag, and also the feeling of their constituencies about a flag which would best serve Canada. I was elected a member of parliament for a certain area and I intend to speak for the people in that area. When it comes to the point where I cannot speak for them they can replace me with someone else, and that is exactly what will happen. You know, Mr. Speaker, you can pick the best man in any community but you do not know what you have got until after you have got him. You do not know what his reactions will be until after he is elected a member of parliament.
Some people come here thinking they are some special creation and they forget all about their constituencies, but those people do not stay here for long, and during my time I have seen a lot of them leave. Mind you, they were a lot smarter men then I and could make wonderful speeches, but when it came down to solid facts they forgot all about the people who elected them. They did not pay any attention to their mail. I have seen fellows with mail piled a foot deep on their desks and who thought all they had to do was get up in the house and make a speech. More people talked themselves out of this house than talked themselves into it, and I would suggest to the younger members of the house that if you want to stay here, don't talk too often and then they don't know how stupid you are. That is the reason why I have stayed here so long.
When this flag issue first came up I thought the Prime Minister would at least give us a choice. I am sure hundreds of designs were submitted to him, as they were to all of us, but in my opinion he picked the one that was the least attractive. Had he gone to the Indians or Eskimos I am sure he would have found an artist among them who could have drawn a better flag than he produced.
I do not understand why the Prime Minister will not accept the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. This is the best way out that I know for him, and he should let the people tell him what flag they want. I myself do not want any particular flag. If the majority of the people want another 20220-459i
Canadian Flag
flag I will go along with that, but I do object to having no choice whatsoever and I cannot understand this attitude of the Prime Minister and why he has been so ill-advised.
During the time the Liberals were in opposition they had two members who had more to say than anybody else, and knew how to run the country, or at least they said so, when the Conservatives were in power. Now they are in the cabinet, and if this is the advice they have given the Prime Minister, all I can say is that it is not very good advice.
I suggest that he take advice from some of his backbenchers who have more sense about flags than he himself has.
I have a daughter-in-law who is a Ukrainian. Her family has been in this country for a generation and she can speak Ukrainian. She has a family of four, the youngest being about nine, but she has never tried to teach her children to speak Ukrainian. These people were satisfied to come to Canada and live like Canadians. In fact all the different nationalities that have come here in the last 25 years do not clamour for us to speak their languages. They are good people, fine people, and have contributed a lot to this country, but they do not demand that their languages be spoken, and why a minority language should be forced on the rest of Canada is more than I can understand.
I do not think the Prime Minister can stay prime minister unless he is ready and willing to do the things that the ten provinces want him to do. The sooner he gets that into his head the better he will get along. If he is the statesmen he should be, he will not listen to any minority group and do the things they want him to do. He does not have to do those things, and he does not have to be embarrassed about it either. At present he is embarrassing his own members who are trying their best to follow him against their will. I will not disclose any names, but some of them have told me they do not want to go along with the Prime Minister but what else can they do when he says, "Either vote for my flag or else there will be an election"? Like a great many others they do not want an election and I do not believe the country wants an election.
Surely to goodness there is not any group who would want a flag which the majority of the Canadian people would not accept? I hope the Prime Minister will take this advice from me. I have been here longer than he has. I do not pretend to know as much as he does, but surely I could not have stayed here for this length of time without being able to

Canadian Flag
figure out the best thing to do. I have been in some pretty good fights since I came here, and I say to the Prime Minister that the easiest way to work this thing out is not to quarrel about it but to talk it out, and talk sensibly to each other.
I hope I have not said anything that has offended anybody in the house because I did not get up for that purpose. I would not want to offend anybody; I like my friends too well for that. I like my people at home, and I had to get up and say something about the flag because this is the flag they want, and so long as they want it I am satisfied to speak for them. If we cannot get it, then I hope to goodness we can appoint a joint committee of the house and the Senate to go into the question and bring back a recommendation. If there is an overwhelming majority of the committee in favour of that recommendation then I would say accept it, and it does not have to be a unanimous recommendation. I do not think it would be possible to achieve that, but it should be a great majority before we accept anything.
The Prime Minister has said he will allow a free vote, but now that so much time has elapsed I am afraid a free vote would not count as much as it would have a month ago. He should take a second look at this matter. I believe he acted like a school teacher when he said, "Either you pass this flag or you don't get any summer holiday." You cannot talk to grown men like that. I was whip of this party when we had 208 members to handle. I got along fine with them and from my experience I can tell you that you cannot tell grown men what they have to do. They know what they have to do without anybody telling them. You can ask them to do something, but you cannot tell them.
I hope the Prime Minister will come to his senses before he has destroyed the unity of Canada. If we are to have unity in Canada it has to be unity in ten provinces, not in nine, or one. We have to be all united and the sooner we are all united and go ahead with something more important than the flag, the better it will be for Canada. If the government has any legislation that is more important than the flag, why does it not introduce it? Why does it put the flag ahead of important legislation? Nobody told the government to bring in the flag and nobody insisted on its being introduced. Because we are talking to stop the government from passing this flag, and this is the only hope we have of stopping it, the Prime Minister thinks this is a filibuster. This is not a filibuster. This is a question which, once it is

settled, is settled for all time. The decision, once taken, cannot be altered. I hope the Prime Minister-and this is all I intend to say-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Now listen, boys, and learn a little more. I could stand here and speak for a long time. I have plenty of notes I have not looked at yet. Nobody else has seen them; I wrote them myself. But I do not like reading notes, even though in this particular debate I would prefer to have used my notes so as to avoid the possibility of my saying something which, later, I would find I had not really intended to say; sometimes we are led away on such occasions as this into saying things we might afterwards regret. On this occasion, let me remind hon. members opposite, I could go on for another half hour, at least. I do not know how much time I have left to me, but I have not been called to order yet and I wish to thank the Chair very much.


James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Speaker,
I would be delighted to take the wise advice of my hon. friend from Huron (Mr. Cardiff) and sit still and learn a little more; but as this debate progresses and the month of August draws to a close I find it difficult to stand up in this chamber without indulging in a little reminiscing.
The minds of many of us on this side of the house, when we think of the many trouble spots in the world today, turn to an occasion almost 25 years ago, when we had to stand up and make decisions-decisions which, once reached, could not be treated lightly. In September, 1939, many of us, with little or no idea of what the future held, decided that Canada was worth fighting for and that our way of life should be retained, never of course thinking for one minute that the symbols which we cherished then would have to be surrendered on the altar of political expediency.
When the original resolution was introduced, it appeared, because of the heavy propaganda with which it was launched, that those opposed would be submerged by weight of numbers. But the constructive approach by members of this party has kept debate at a high level. Now it appears across the country that resistance has stiffened and that support for a more democratic choice for a flag design is being registered. It was to this end that the subamendment was introduced, and if it were adopted would show in no uncertain terms the divergency of opinion regarding a national flag.

By supporting this subamendment, the members of this party are being more charitable than were some other members of this house when Bill C-97 was introduced on October 2, 1963, and Bill C-83 on March 25 of this year. On both those occasions attempts were made to prevent first reading of a bill which would adopt by statute the red ensign as Canada's national flag. Because of the action taken with regard to the introduction of these particular bills, I am fully convinced that the people of Canada wish a choice in the design of a national flag. No amount of verbiage on the part of this government can conceal the fact there is bitter resentment not only regarding the design of the Prime Minister's flag but in the method used to secure its adoption. Many views were expressed to me, not all favourable, at a time when the flag issue was not so controversial as it is now. Needless to say, I am now glad their opinions were given at a time more free from emotion and sentiment. However, as I suggested, all submissions were not in favour of the red ensign as it flies today. There were those who suggested modification as defined in the subamendment. In a mood of compromise there have been suggestions that the present flag be retained, with further recognition of Canada's multicultural existence. At least those who feel additions are needed to a truly national flag should at least have the opportunity to put forward their ideas.
Still, it is obvious there are those with strong convictions who are willing to seek some common ground on which to settle this controversial issue. The subamendment introduced by the hon. member from Regina City (Mr. More) is the most sensible device yet suggested to give the people of this country the right to exercise that freedom of choice which is presently being denied them. It is hard to understand in this day and age why a minority government should use such an arbitrary method of forcing on the Canadian people a lacklustre flag, supported by illogical arguments and dedicated to rancour and division.
On the other hand, those who favour the three maple leaf design would have an equal opportunity to vote for the flag of their choice. They would be doing this on an individual basis and should be glad of the opportunity to register their opinions without political pressure or fear of any recriminations. It should be an honour for those who wish to relegate the red ensign to history to stand and be counted in support of a design which appeals to their particular fancy. Those who wish all symbols of our
Canadian Flag
British heritage obliterated from our flag should welcome a plebiscite in which they could favour a design bereft of those emr blems of our Christian civilization. This arboreal mutation of sea and tree is entitled to that recognition which the faithful can promote in a flag combination of wood and water.
If the government feels the Canadian public is overwhelmingly in favour of its design, then of course it is justified in the action being taken, but most indications are to the contrary. The government would immediately acquire considerable respect if even one or two of the suggestions made in this debate were considered.
Surely the suggestions made in the subamendment are not so outrageous as to be ignored completely. Surely reason and compromise are not words so foreign to our vocabulary that they must be disregarded. The official opposition has made it possible to discuss the flag issue in terms of the wishes and desires of all people in Canada, as opposed to the government's hard-headed stand on the three maple leaf design or nothing.
With the submission of literally hundreds of designs there must also be thousands of individuals whose creative imagination might yet produce a flag design acceptable to many people in this country. But under existing conditions there is no incentive or effort to produce anything but hostility.
A great disservice will be effected if the present amendments are ignored and the government proceeds on its present course towards that situation best described as an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. While I am personally in favour of any measure which will ensure Canadian unity and understanding, I cannot easily relinquish my feelings for that flag which has been recognized for a hundred years. The red ensign is a flag of dignity and nobility. It is a proud emblem of a great nation. It inspires pride and confidence in our democratic institutions over which it flies. It is an appropriate mark of our past and a distinguishing figure of our future. Those who have fought under its colours have an abiding pride in the traditions it represents. Those who promote its continuing existence today are remaining true to a trust which will ever be maintained by all who will never yield where principle or honour is concerned.
I have not used any documents in the course of my remarks, or excerpts from newspapers, or letters. However, these only serve

Canadian Flag
to assure me that there is an ever increasing weight of public opinion which is dissatisfied with the method devised to promote the government's flag. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the press can be of tremendous value at a time like this by faithful and objective reporting. But regardless of whether or not the voice of reason is heard, there will be no abject surrender on a topic which tears at the very roots of a nation. This is a time to bind and not to cleave, and I trust that methods may yet be found to mend our differences and resolve our difficulties.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for speaking on the subamendment that is now before us. I consider that it is the responsibility and, if I can be more emphatic, the duty of each member to speak on the flag issue and the move of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to take the red ensign from us. After all, as has been explained by many hon. members, the Prime Minister asked us all to express our views. This is not a filibuster. Members of the official opposition are doing what they were elected to do, namely to exert a restraining influence, and if I could be more blunt I might say to block foolish, unwise and unwanted government action. I am one of the majority of Canadians who consider that removal of the Canadian red ensign is unwise, foolish and unwanted. I repeat, this is not a filibuster. We are doing what must be done in an effort to prevent a great mistake that Canadians would have to live with for a long, long time. We are acting responsibly in the public interest, and to a greater and greater extent the public is beginning to appreciate this, in spite of certain biased press reports and certain statements by government leaders.
We are not holding up government legislation, as has been explained by other speakers, because there is no urgent government legislation before us. There should be government action on many pressing problems, but none of this very essential action has been taken, or at least it has not been directed into definite legislation that could be considered by parliament. How can we be accused of holding up government legislation, when the Prime Minister admits that he has nothing more for us to do now but pass his flag? The Prime Minister has told us that if we conclude the flag debate on the terms he has dictated, we can have a recess. I was going to say "a summer recess", Mr. Speaker, but that season is now past. As other speakers have said, we in the official opposition place

our duty and responsibility above the offer of a holiday. By using up our own holiday time we cannot, in any fair way, be accused of holding up government legislation that is not ready for us.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, each member of this house should make his or her position clear on this very upsetting and emotional flag issue thrust on the country by the Prime Minister. I will make my position clear at the beginning of my remarks. I think the Canadian people should have an opportunity to express their wishes on such a personal and emotional question as a national flag. That is why I am speaking in support of the subamendment. As has been pointed out by other speakers, holding a plebiscite is not a very common practice in our system of democratic government. I agree that this is so. But in this particular matter of choosing a national flag, I think it is essential, in the interest of general acceptance of that flag, that the people be given an opportunity to express their views and thus make the choice by a majority decision. This is all we are asking in the subamendment and the amendment.
This particular flag issue is not an ordinary problem of government policy that can be changed by removing the government at the next election. With an ordinary piece of parliamentary legislation concerning economic or fiscal policy, that can be revised or removed by a succeeding government without too much effect on the public, I do not consider that a plebiscite is necessary. But this flag issue is entirely different. It is an intensely emotional question, and if a flag is chosen it will remain as our national flag and cannot be changed by a succeeding government. That is why we should have a plebiscite.
The subamendment clarifies the amendment moved by our leader proposing such a plebiscite. The Prime Minister and his supporters are opposed to this suggestion of a plebiscite. Why? They say a plebiscite would bring out -and these are their words-divisions in this country and would create new dissensions. The Prime Minister should have thought of this before he decided, apparently all by himself or at least with only a few advisers -or should I say, ill-advisers-to foist his three maple leaf design on Canada.
I am sure-and others have made the same statement-that foisting an ill-considered flag on the people, without their consent by their vote, will create a great deal more division and dissension than could ever be caused by a plebiscite. I firmly believe that the people- at least, those in the area for which I speak-

want to be consulted about the flag; they want to have a hand in making this very important decision, this very emotional decision. I believe the Prime Minister is beginning to realize this at last. I think the great volume of letters he is receiving is having an effect on him. How else can one explain his apparent change of mind, or at least his changed attitude? Now he says he might consider the setting up of a special all-party committee to study the issue and bring in a report. Of course, there are strings to this offer; but at least it appears to be a softening of his earlier dictatorial attitude. If we cannot have a plebiscite, the matter of an all-party committee to study flag designs and bring in a recommendation might be considered.
The members of that committee would have a great responsibility and must be able to represent the views of the majority of their constituents. When and if such a committee is set up, each member should have received over 50 per cent of the votes cast in his constituency in the 1963 federal election. In this way those members would be considered as speaking for the majority of their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, it appears that agreement in respect of such a committee has not been reached. I will now return to the question in respect of the plebiscite. The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) lists four choices, or questions. The first is in respect of the retention of the Canadian red ensign in its present form. The second relates to the red ensign with changes, emblematic of the main heritages of the two founding races. The third relates to the three maple leaf design, commonly referred to as the Pearson flag. The fourth choice relates to the one maple leaf design.
Mr. Speaker, when I speak in support of the subamendment I am speaking for the many constituents who have written to me. I have received more than 800 letters expressing support for the red ensign. I received my first letter today in favour of the Pearson flag. In addition to those individuals who have written in favour of the red ensign, many have expressed support for a plebiscite. In view of the fact we are considering that subject at this time I should like to quote portions of several letters I have received. I think it is my duty to do so in an attempt to show that I am not speaking merely from a personal feeling, but from the point of view of my constituents.
Canadian Flag
Mr. Speaker, I only intend to read short portions of these letters, and I will name those places from which they emanate.
The first letter was written from Strasbourg and states in part:
We consider it an insult to our intelligence that we have been denied a referendum.
The second letter is from Watrous and states in part:
Regarding the flag. Most of the people that I have spoken with are in favour of the red ensign and those that are lukewarm on the subject at least feel there should be a vote on the matter.
The next letter is from Pense, and states:
-75 per cent-
Referring to this district-
-in favour of having a vote on the matter.
The next letter is from Nokomis and in part states:
Regarding the flag issue-: Everyone I have talked to concerning this issue are of one mind. A vote should have been held asking if a distinctive Canadian flag was desired by the people.
Another letter I received from Strasbourg states:
I don't think Mr. Pearson should be allowed to get away with such high handed tactics in regard to a flag we have had for so long. The people should have a chance to voice their opinion in such an important matter.
I received this letter from Semans, which states:
As for the people around here, whether they are for the red ensign or not, the vast majority feels that a new flag should not be imposed on us without a national referendum. They feel that, if the majority of the Canadian people want a new flag then a new flag it should be, but if the majority want the red ensign then the red ensign should be maintained.
Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram from the Semans, Saskatchewan, branch of the Canadian Legion which was accompanied by four pages of signatures, and which states:
We strongly deplore the arbitrary action of your minority government-
This telegram was sent to Mr. Pearson.
-in dictating to the people that they shall have a new flag. This contravenes the democratic rights of every Canadian. We respectfully urge that the government call a national plebiscite and restore to the people their democratic privileges of deciding whether they want the red ensign or a new flag.
Mr. Speaker, in order to show that the point of view I am presenting is not that held only by the people in my constituency, I should like to refer briefly to statements from other sources. The first is from Toronto in the form

Canadian Flag
of a circular letter which states in the third paragraph:
One way we can be effective is to demand a plebiscite or national vote on the flag issue.
The second quotation I should like to refer to appears in an editorial in the Toronto Telegram of August 2, 1964 and in part states:
The Canadian ensign must not be lowered without the consent of the people.
No decision of the House of Commons, by free vote or otherwise, to strike our historic ensign and replace it with a pennant of the Prime Minister's choosing can be construed as expressing the consensus of the nation.
The voice of the people can be heard, on this issue only through a national plebiscite.
Mr. Speaker, I think that brief reference to this important editorial indicates the whole gist of it and expresses the opinion of the majority of Canadians.
I should now like to quote from an article which appeared in the Victoria Colonist as follows:
-the request to the egocentric Prime Minister to allow the citizens of Canada to vote about the flag.
They were referring to a national plebiscite.
I should like to quote from an article appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of June 29, 1964, after the Prime Minister first introduced this new design to replace the red ensign. This article refers to a poll taken in Winnipeg in respect of the flag issue, and not a flagpole.
Seventy four per cent of those polled favoured a national referendum on the flag.
I should like to now quote from a letter I received from the dominion president of the Canadian corps association. I am sure every member of parliament received a copy of this letter. The president states:
Therefore, the Canadian corps association, dominion command, again emphatically requests the Prime Minister of Canada, and parliament as a whole, to place this subject before the people, at the next regularly scheduled general election. Let the voters finalize this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to mention this matter in the House of Commons when the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) is not in her seat, but I told her I was going to make reference to the amazing statement she made in which she asked every member to vote in favour of Mr. Pearson's design, disregarding the expressed wishes of their constituents. As I say, I was very amazed at that. I took her to task in an earlier speech and evidently what I said came to the attention of the newspaper in her district. She represents the constituency
[Mr. Pascoe.l
of Northumberland. The editor of the paper there saw my comments and sent me a copy of the Cobourg Sentinel-Star for July 22 last in which is published the results of a poll conducted in her constituency of Northumberland. The headline is "Northumberland wants ensign, favour nation-wide vote, county people are emphatic, decisive choice is made". The report goes on to say that in the survey 626 people were asked for their opinions and the result was considerably more than two to one in favour of the red ensign. With regard to the question of a plebiscite, which we are now considering, the question asked in the poll was: "Do you favour a vote on the issue of a national flag"? The survey showed that 358 favoured a plebiscite, 130 were opposed and the remainder either had no opinion or preferred a plebiscite provided no cost was involved.
As I say, I am sorry the hon. member for Northumberland is not present, but I am sure she received a copy of this newspaper survey. To continue further on the matter of a plebiscite I should like to read an excerpt from an editorial which appeared in The Legionary for July, 1964. I think it should be put on the record. It reads as follows:
The Legionary believes that the flag question is such an issue and again strongly urges the Prime Minister to let the Canadian people decide, one way or another through a national plebiscite. It is the most democratic way of solving this problem. It is the only way to ascertain what the people really want. And the request for a plebiscite is sure to be warmly supported by all Canadians of good will and moderation because, no matter what the result, if the issue were settled by a parliamentary vote only, grave doubts would arise in the minds of a great many citizens that it represented the will of the people. These doubts would linger on for many years and would remain a serious obstacle to the attainment of national unity. So please, Mr. Prime Minister, let the people decide. It would be a statesmanlike solution and might well be a nation saving move.
I think that brief editorial comment certainly sums up the stand we in the opposition are taking. Finally, with regard to the need for a plebiscite I should like to refer to a report which appeared in the Amherst Daily News on December 29, 1961 before the Prime Minister became prime minister. He was being interviewed at a press conference held in Halifax and was being questioned with regard to a flag. He expressed the opinion then that there should be a distinctive flag, and was asked this question:
How would you poll the people on this?
This was his reply:
We would poll the people when we have a general election. And if they don't like the idea of a distinctive Canadian flag which can't be

mistaken for that of any other country, they'll let us know in no uncertain terms.
That was the statement that the present Prime Minister made at a press conference in Halifax on December 29, 1961. I think 1 have put enough quotations on the record to show that the people of my constituency want a plebiscite, and I believe it is just an average constituency that is representative of a great part of Canada. The galleries have been crowded during the flag debate. These daily visitors from all parts of Canada have heard our side of the question, and when I say "our side" I mean the views of members of the official opposition. I have met some of the visitors afterwards and they have expressed surprise at the silence on this question on the government side. I might add that I too am surprised at the silence of government supporters. The gallery visitors and Canadians generally will have to place their own interpretation on the absence of personally expressed opinions in support of the Prime Minister's flag.
I am not a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that in court it is recognized legal practice that when the defendant has a poor case he says as little as possible. Perhaps this explains the silence of the government and its supporters. During a period of heckling directed against one of our speakers the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught), who is in the house now, was challenged to tell the house why he was supporting the Prime Minister's attempt to remove the Canadian red ensign, which has been our officially recognized flag for so long. His reply was that his vote against the red ensign would be his speech. I do not think Canadians will accept such an offhand attitude. They will want to know why he is voting against our present flag, why he, the Prime Minister and their colleagues are so determined to remove the Canadian red ensign from flagpoles all across Canada.
We would like to hear from more government members. I do not throw out a challenge, because that might be embarrassing to them, but I point out again that the people in the galleries and people all across Canada want to hear their explanations or excuses. The voters want to read in the newspapers or hear on radio or television why government members want to have a flag that severs all connection with our past history. In the hope that at least one of them will rise to defend his intention to vote against the red ensign if we ever come to the vote, I will conclude my remarks by inviting any 20220-460
Canadian Flag
member on the opposite side of the house to rise and defend his position.


Mr. G. H. Doucell (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate this evening on the subject that is before the house I consider it to be a great privilege as well as a duty on behalf of the historic riding of Lanark which I have the honour to represent. I first wish to express my congratulations to the many members who have taken part in the debate. As a former speaker said this evening, they have distinguished themselves and their speeches have been of a very high calibre. With that I agree, and while I should like to mention all of them, time does not permit.
But, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to hear some of the government supporters express their views, especially some of my next door neighbours, and others a little more distant from my riding. I should like to hear my neighbour to the east who represents that great county of Carleton. I would also be delighted to hear my good friend and neighbour to the north, that budding politician who is making a great bid for the Liberal leadership in the province of Ontario.
I should also like to hear from the minister who represents that historic constituency within which lies what is known as the limestone city, Kingston.
Yes, I would go a little farther west to one of the other ridings I know fairly well, and in which many of my friends and acquaintances live, that of Hastings South. I would be delighted to hear the young member who represents that riding express his views on this very important issue that is before the house. I think it is a very important issue, Mr. Speaker, but I do not believe it is an urgent one. I fully realize that feelings on this issue are mixed, but the extent to which they are mixed we cannot be sure. Surely when an issue strikes at the very soul of a nation, consideration should be given in an attempt to arrive at a fundamental solution.
In my opinion, the government is off to a poor start. Should there be a plebiscite or should a committee be established? This is something to which I believe the government should give serious consideration. The proposal now before the house is mentioned in the resolution, but I am not going to take the time of the house to read it. It will never bring about, Mr. Speaker, that which the government, I hope, would wish, and that is greater unity throughout Canada. The amendment before us offers all our people some alternative. Surely, the selection of a flag is

Canadian Flag
not a one man task. Perhaps as a result of the strong feelings that exist in Canada today regarding language and culture, it is extremely difficult to unravel the threads leading to the subject of the flag, all the pros and cons of this particular issue, and to consider unemotionally and with understanding all the suggestions put forward by the various groups and organizations across this great country, all of whom desire to be known as Canadians.
A flag is described, as explained tonight by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale (Mr. Rapp), as being a piece of cloth or a device attached to a staff or halyard, used as a standard, symbol or signal. I feel certain that if Canada is to survive in the present state of confederation, such a flag must become a symbol of unity to all Canadians. Various groups hold very strong views as to what such a flag should contain by way of symbols and devices. These feelings arise from deep seated loyalties and allegiance to one or other of the founding races of Canada. The decision as to just what a national flag for Canada is to become is a very difficult one for those charged with that responsibility. While the decision will be difficult, it will also be historic and must be approached with a full realization of this position. On this decision undoubtedly will rest one of the greatest contributing factors to our country's unity or disunity for generations to come.
There are three flags prominent in the discussion concerning a flag for Canada. First there is the union jack. This flag, pure and simple, is essentially the military flag of England. It was ordained by virtue of the royal proclamation of King James in April, 1606. It is interesting to note that only 15 years later, in 1621, a flag was granted to Sir William Alexander for Nova Scotia by King James, in the charter of New Scotland. Nova Scotia is the only province of Canada to possess, through royal charter, a flag of its own, and I understand it is the pride of that province to this day. The union jack has claimed the strong allegiance of thousands of Canadians down through the years, particularly those whose ethnic origin is in the United Kingdom. In order to emphasize this point, Mr. Speaker, it is only necessary to recall the United Empire Loyalists who came to this country as pioneers to live under the union jack rather than another flag. All of those great citizens who braved the briny oceans, who came here and hewed their homes from the primeval forests, I am sure 
have left a heritage for us, of which we should all be proud.
Canada is pleased, I am sure, to regard herself as a Christian country. Most of her citizens, if not actually professing Christians at least have a certain amount of reverence for God, the Bible and all those attributes usually understood by the general term "Christianity". For this reason, the union jack has added appeal because it enshrines the upright cross which is the emblem of our Lord, yes, of our Lord's death on Calvary, for our national redemption and personal salvation.
The red ensign is described in the encyclopedia as a plain red flag bearing the union jack on the upper quarter next to the staff. This is the flag of the British merchant service and of all peoples who are not entitled to use the white or blue ensign. By the addition of a device in the fly containing the symbols of the United Kingdom, the fleur-de-lis for France and the maple leaf for Canada, this flag has been in common usage as a Canadian flag for at least two decades. It has been flown from all public buildings and government establishments in Canada. It has been used by our armed forces in various theatres of the world. It has been generally accepted by all visitors to Canada as the Canadian flag. Our men and women of the services have proudly served under the red ensign in foreign lands. To them it represented all for which they were ready and willing to lay down their lives if necessary and for it many shed their blood.
I should like to just read this poem by John McCrae. I think it is something to which every Canadian should give thought when they are thinking about wiping out the very heritage and tradition of this country, that symbol and that emblem which we have loved and cherished over the years. John McCrae wrote:
In Flanders fields the popples blow Between the crosses, row on row.
That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.
I say that we should give thought to some of those great citizens who fought and died for us. During the world wars the Canadian red ensign, the old red duster as it is called

by many, was symbolic of hope and unswerving devotion to duty on all the seven seas.
There have been strong representations, from national organizations as well as a host of individuals, that this flag be retained and confirmed as our Canadian flag. I, like other members of the house, have received many letters and suggestions for new flags, some from personal individual friends, but I would only like to put on record a couple, one being from the Smiths Falls Record-News as follows:
We felt you would be interested in being assessed the results of a readers' poll taken over the past two weeks by this newspaper. The readers were asked their preference for a national flag as well as a national anthem. The following are
the results:
The ensign Maple leaf The Queen O Canada
83.7	per cent
16.3	per cent
72.7	per cent
27.3	per cent
Enclosed with it was an article which appeared in the newspaper and at the end of
it there was this poem:
I am ready to fight,
With all my might,
Anyone on the wrong track,
Trying to pull down our union jack.
Some say a maple leaf that's all,
To me a maple leaf turns yellow in the fall. My deepest soul Within me grieves,
Flying on a pole,
Three maple leaves.
I have another article from the same paper in which it states:
The flag debate seems to have made people and organizations conscious of our present national symbols. A number of residents of the town have started to fly their own personal flag choice from their porches and car aerials. A number of merchants have reported that they cannot keep the red ensign in stock. Latest to join the red ensign group is the Smiths Falls lawn bowling club which erected a flag pole last week.
I would also like to place on the record a letter which covers a petition signed by many hundreds of signers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It would be well if we allowed the hon. member for Lanark to continue without being interrupted.


George Henry Doucett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was about to read this letter which covers a petition signed by several hundred signers:
We the undersigned feel it is about time that some voices were heard in favour of the red ensign, which a vast majority in Lanark county respect and fly as our national flag. Why a change should be proposed by Mr. Pearson to appease a small vocal group we cannot understand.
20220-460i
Canadian Flag
Mr. Pearson should be aware that his is a minority government. Only 42 per cent of the Canadian people saw fit to vote for this government, and the majority of our people decided not to do so. There has never been a prime minister since confederation who has caused so much disunity, bitterness, strife and confusion. I personally agree with some hon. members of parliament and many Canadians that Pearson is trying to ram this new flag down the throats of the Canadian people.
We, the people of Lanark county representing every religious and political affiliation along with representatives of the I.O.D.E., Orange associations, I.O.O.F., Masonic, Knights of Columbus and many others etc., etc., are opposed to any Canadian flag which does not incorporate the union jack. May we respectively solicit your support in this respect.	.
Rarely in Canadian history has a parliament presented such an unattractive picture of itself to the people who elect it, the people who pay for it. the people whose public business it is supposed to transact.
The voters are not amused, the voters are not at all impressed with what they see in Ottawa. We are disgusted and disillusioned.
We, the voters of Lanark county and petitioners go on record as being opposed to the proposed new tri maple leaf flag to replace the red ensign. Every Canadian should be granted the right to vote on this vital matter by means of a national plebiscite.
Of the many letters I have received those are all I am going to put on the record, but I would like to say a word about the proposed new flag. This flag, without any symbols of the two founding nations, is strictly Canadian design and it has been said it meets the heraldic requirements of a flag. It is not known whether this is acceptable to the French speaking population across the country, and it has been received with mixed feelings by other groups.
There are people who cannot see any good in it at all. There is another group which, though being extremely loyal to the crown of Britain, takes the view that unity in Canada is of the greatest importance, and the people in this group would accept the proposed flag in the hope that it might contribute to Canadian unity and make for a stronger Canada, which would in turn strengthen the commonwealth. In this way they feel that they would be serving the best interests of both Canada and the commonwealth. There is yet another group which subscribes to the thoughts just expressed but which hastens to add that it is in accord only with the principle of a new, distinctive Canadian flag, not with the methods being employed to bring about its approval. No individual, and no government can employ such methods without being political. I feel that a matter which so closely concerns the life of this nation should be settled in such a way as to cement the unity about which a former prime minister, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent,

Canadian Flag
said, and I say, "Without unity, all is futile".
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Prime Minister, that while the people of this bountiful land wait for important legislation to be dealt with, he, their commander in chief, obstructs the country's march to economic fulfilment by protracted debate on an issue which history records was settled years ago. The voice of Canada from sea to sea is vibrant and strong. I say to the Prime Minister: If you would have ears to hear, its voice speaks by day and by night. Can this house ignore the wishes of men and women who long since decided what flag should represent Canada on the ramparts of freedom? Is the petition presented weeks ago by the hon. members from Cumberland (Mr. Coates), York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) and Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) bearing nearly 20,000 names to be treated as a mere scrap of paper. Are not these 20,000 people who took the trouble of signing a petition to send to the parliament of Canada deserving of some consideration?
The history of this country is steeped in tradition. I trust that the Prime Minister and the members of his government will give heed to the traditions they know to be a part of this great country's inheritance. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has closed his ears to the request of more than 250,000 gallant men and women who gave their services and offered their lives for their country, and who are now denied the right even to express their views by balloting on the flag of their choice. When the right hon. gentleman met with them in Winnipeg-I will not repeat what he said on that occasion; we have heard it several times-he as much as said: Here is your flag; take it or leave it. I think that is a pitiful experience to go down in the records of this country-that he would say this to people who fought and defended this country under the red ensign.
I fully realize we are living in a democratic country. I stand for the fullest degree of freedom and I hope we shall always have the privilege in this great land of ours to think, speak, worship and go about as we wish. But I do not think a decision of such emotional importance as this should be, or can be, decided by members of the House of Commons and still retain Canada's maximum unity. I feel that everyone who wishes to do so should have the opportunity to voice their views and opinions. The provinces [Mr. Doucett.l
which make up our dominion naturally have boundaries. But Canada is without boundaries from sea to sea and should be one Canada for all Canadians. As I say, I fully agree with the democratic process, but I feel the method employed on this occasion must be one which will keep this country united in order that we may go forward united and build on the great foundation which was so nobly laid by our forefathers.


John Ross Matheson: Would the hon. member who has taken his seat permit a question? May I ask the hon. member for Lanark, my friend and neighbour, whether in view of the fact that he has made reference to the Prime Minister's address to the Royal Canadian Legion in Winnipeg he would read to this house one sentence or paragraph thereof which he regards as being evidence of poor judgment, or poor taste, or as being offensive?


Some hon. Members:: The whole speech.


George Henry Doucett: In reply to my hon. friend and neighbour-to use the expression he did -in case there may be some misinterpretation of the right hon. gentleman's statement I will leave it to him, when he makes his own speech, to explain in the greatest of detail what his views are. The hon. member has interrupted every speaker who has spoken in this debate-


John Ross Matheson: Untrue.


George Henry Doucett: And I think it is time they should have an opportunity to speak without such interruptions.


Mr. Jean-Louis Frenette (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but in view of the slowness of the procedure and the stubbornness of some members of the house, I feel I have to take seven or eight minutes to express my constituents' views and inform the house of the feelings which have developed among the people since this debate started two weeks ago.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the word debate no longer applies here and that what we are witnessing is much more closely connected with the world of entertainment than with parliamentary procedure.
I do not feel that the supporters of a real flag and their opponents have the right to carry on this empty discussion any longer.
More than a hundred speeches have now been delivered on the matter. Everyone has reached his own conclusions. I do not think that any argument can be added which might influence anybody.

An amendment and a subamendment have been introduced and since then speeches have been going on, most of the time outside the questions respecting this amendment asking for a referendum, or outside the subamendment which deals with the questions that might be asked in a possible plebiscite.
The Canadian people are asking more and more embarrassing questions on the nation's business.
Since when does parliament have to consult the people on such and such question after it has been sworn in? What is the role of the government? How far can the responsibility of the members of the government go? Are members of parliament so inefficient that they have to consult their electors as soon as a difficult question must be solved?
Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is high time to put an end to this sham of a debate, for the simple reason that the Canadian people are losing confidence in this wonderful institution of parliament. The Canadian people are also losing confidence in the members of this parliament, who refuse to take their responsibility and are looking for excuses to camouflage the truth.
I agree that each member should have the right to express his opinion in the house, and I respect that opinion. I also agree that the supporters of the union jack or the red ensign should defend those flags, and I recognize their merit. Were I myself in their position, I would do the same. Since they represent ridings where the electors want to maintain those symbols, they are only doing their duty and, for that reason, they deserve our respect.
But I cannot admit that responsible members of the House of Commons should hide behind this referendum smokescreen to reject the responsibility on the Canadian people.
The Canadian parliament has become the laughing stock of the people and its reputation for inefficiency is increasingly spreading, to such an extent that we are justified in wondering whether we could ever make up for all the wrong already done in this connection.
How can we claim to be qualified to administer the country and settle the serious problems of our times, if we are not even in a position to organize our own legislative program?
The deadlock where we now find ourselves is the most eloquent argument in favour of a revision of the whole procedure and I hope
Canadian Flag
that all hon. members will remember that in due time.
The Portneuf people are well known for their common sense and their innate sense of logic. Besides, they proved it in a very eloquent way during the last two elections. They are respectful of order and of our institutions, but in face of the ridiculous situation created by the discussion on the flag resolution, their faith and confidence are seriously shaken. And every time I have an opportunity to meet them, they inform me of their concern and disappointment.
Those people want a genuine Canadian flag and after the information I gave them, they still have confidence that this government will adopt such a flag. That is why I am asking the government to take all the means available to them to bring to an end, as soon as possible, this futile discussion by giving us an opportunity to express our views by voting on the matter.
I do not intend to advance any new arguments in support of the resolution or to refute certain points raised by the official opposition, because I would be afraid to fall into the same errors for which I am blaming certain of my colleagues.
The choice of the design, the timing of the introduction of the resolution, the likelihood of an eventual compromise, all those subjects have been, to my mind, sufficiently discussed. I think the institution of a committee was an elegant gesture on the part of the Prime Minister, but the terms laid down by the Leader of the Opposition were so harsh that they prove, once again, the ill will of some members.
The Prime Minister is blamed for certain withdrawals, certain retreats. It has often been said in this debate that such reversals on the part of the leader of the government are due to the fact that he is no politician. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Prime Minister is not a politician; unfortunately, there are too many politicians who more often than not give more thought to the next election than to the serious business of the nation.
In reaching a decision, the Prime Minister was not concerned with election results, but with a solemn promise made to the Canadian people. By his courageous action, he gained the high respect of the whole nation and, whatever may be our views on this issue, he should be commended for his courageous attitude.
The manner in which this project was presented may have been clumsy. That is

Canadian Flag
possible. However, I do not think it would be fair to discredit the whole issue because of that.
Personally, I am glad to be a member of parliament today and to participate in this historic debate. Having had the honour of supporting a truly Canadian flag will be my greatest satisfaction and probably my most pleasant memory as a member of parliament.
The Prime Minister is being criticized for his statement on a free vote. Among those who object to that, is there a single member whose vote will be affected by that statement?
Mr. Speaker, I feel that all hon. members are now sufficiently informed on the issue and that it should be put to a vote without further delay. In my opinion, the longer the final decision is delayed the greater the risk for national unity.
If, after the series of speeches that we have heard, there are still members in this house who do not feel sufficiently informed or enlightened, it will be necessary to consider amending the Elections Act to have each candidate take an I.Q. test, in addition to making a $200 deposit.
In order to maintain the reputation of parliament and its members, under the authority conferred upon parliament for the proper administration of the affairs of this country, I take the liberty to urge on the members of the government the necessity of taking action to close this debate, by extraordinary means, if need be.
Mr. Speaker, you may be sure that if I had the power to put forward a closure motion, I would be greatly pleased to do so, knowing that I would thus be doing my duty as a representative of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales).


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member who has just resumed his seat permit a question? He referred several times to "a distinctive flag". Would he mind telling the house what he means by "distinctive"?


Yvon Dupuis: Not with a union jack on the flag.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: There's a great statement from a cabinet minister.


Jean-Louis Frenette: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of the hon. member, I must say that

I do not know whether this is due to simultaneous translation, but I referred several times to an authentic and not to a distinctive flag. Whatever interpretation is given to my remarks, by a distinctive flag I mean an emblem which represents our aspirations and which does not bear any sign of allegiance to any foreign country.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Ten thirty.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) care to identify himself as the person who made the remark that "distinctive" is anything that does not contain the union jack?


Some hon. Members:: Yes, say it.


Yvon Dupuis: I said that, Mr. Speaker. A distinctive flag is a flag without the union jack, or without the fleur-de-lis-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Yvon Dupuis: -or without the emblem of any other country on it.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You should be ashamed of yourself.


Mr. Bigg:: A very statesmanlike speech, that was.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. If there are questions about tomorrow's business, they might be asked now.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, during the question period this afternoon, I said that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) should tell us about his discussions with the Quebec U.C.C. representatives who came to meet him last Friday in order to discuss the possibilities of amending his agricultural assistance project, providing for subsidies as regards feed grain transportation in

eastern Canada as well as other parts of the country.
I had raised that question, knowing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but there seems to be more than the usual amount of noise in the chamber. I think the house would want to accord to the hon. member who is now speaking the privileges of the chamber.


Marcel Lessard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are evidently used to these noises and I was not worrying too much.
I was saying that I was interested-as are most hon. members of eastern Canada-to know what was the intention of the Minister of Forestry concerning the subsidies for the transportation of feed grains.
We learned directly from the minister and also through departmental order No. 19641155, that the government intended to establish from September 1 next new rates for the transportation of feed grains in the various parts of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and the maritime provinces.
Having studied the figures made available to us, I came to the conclusion that certain areas would continue to suffer discrimination while others seem to have benefited from the special attention of the minister concerned and his officials.
I refer especially to the Magdalen islands, represented by the minister, and to Newfoundland, which will both benefit from a most generous assistance for the transportation of feed grains.
I am happy, Mr. Speaker, that these areas will benefit from this assistance and I have no intention to propose a reduction of those subsidies.
On the other hand, if we compare the proposed rates, we note that $25 a ton will be granted for the transportation of grain to be delivered in Newfoundland, $7 or $9 for grain delivered in Halifax and $15 for grain delivered in the Magdalen islands. Certain factors which I find hard to assess have played a part in all that.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Saguenay-Lake St. John region which I have the pleasure to represent here, allow me to say that the farmers in that area will suffer from the government's new policy because starting September 1, if nothing is changed, they will have to pay 80 cents a ton more for
25, 1964	7275
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion transportation. I think that is far from what we had the right to expect and from what we had asked.
If that is the policy of farm assistance and restoration which the Minister of Forestry intends to advocate to help farming in eastern Canada, well, he has missed the boat entirely; he will have to proceed differently to restore the farm economy in our regions, particularly in the Saguenay-Lake St. John region.
Our farmers have very good land and they only need a little help in order to manage during the difficult period they are now going through.
Since we have been in the house, that is over two years ago, we have been constantly calling for some action to help farmers especially with regard to the transportation of feed grain.
After waiting so long, we finally hoped that thanks to the member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine, whom I trusted and in whom I still have some confidence, a solution would be provided.
But unfortunately, with the representatives of eastern farmers and the leaders of the Catholic farmers' union, I can only deplore this decision of the minister, and I hope that before September 1, he and his officials will acknowledge their mistakes. I hope that they will bring in some changes so that farmers of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area and others will not suffer any prejudice as a result of a mathematical error made by some officials.
We are told that it is a slight increase. Well, Mr. Speaker, in the present circumstances, the farmers are not in a position to support even a slight increase, when they had every reason and every right to expect an improvement in their situation through a reduction in the cost of feed grain which would have reduced their production cost and enabled them to compete on the markets.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for his question. I regret my inability to reply in his native tongue. I will speak slowly in order that I may communicate the thinking of the minister.
The hon. member has brought to the attention of the house the fact that farmers from the area he represents have had some problems and have expressed some complaints to the minister. The Minister of Forestry recognizes this and suggested to the hon. member

Canadian Flag
in the house today that last Friday he did receive a deputation from Quebec and, in fact, from all Canada with regard to freight assistance on feed grain. I think he would expect me to say at this particular time that under the former policy-when I say "former" I mean the policy that applied prior to the interim statement made on July 24-certain inequalities did exist. There were areas in Canada where more than freight assistance was being paid by the government and in fact this did represent a subsidy on the feed itself.
It was the hope of the minister that these inequalities might be corrected and that in addition certain assistance might apply on feed grain moved by truck in many areas. It
was hoped by the minister and by the government that the application of the assistance on feed grain moved by truck would make it more competitive and would thereby reduce the transportation costs on feed in many areas. While it is recognized that some of the subsidy may have been lost, which was over and above the freight assistance and was actually a subsidy on the feed itself, the reduction as the result of more competitive rates applying in the transportation of this feed will be a compensating factor. I think the minister expressed the thought in the house today that the views of the farmers as expressed on Friday last would be duly considered.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Wednesday, August 26, 1964