1964-08-19

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: I rise on a question of privilege. It has to do with the perpetration of a distortion of history, or an attempt to rewrite part of the early history of the province from which I come, namely Alberta. I have in my hand a press release put out by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources which states:
Two plaques honouring Frank Oliver, founder and publisher of the Edmonton Bulletin and first member of the House of Commons for Alberta, will be unveiled in a joint ceremony by resources minister Arthur Laing and Edmonton mayor William Hawrelak on Monday, August 17.
Further on the press release states:
Oliver founded the Edmonton Bulletin in 1880 and was publisher of the newspaper until 1923. He was the first elected member for Alberta in the House of Commons-
These statements that Hon. Frank Oliver was the first member of the House of Commons from Alberta are completely incorrect. The Parliamentary Guide, which contains a history of the constituencies of Alberta, states, under the information for my own constituency of Calgary North:
In 1887, when the old Northwest Territories were first given representation in parliament, the whole of the old territory of Alberta was created an electoral division with one member. In 1903, the territory was divided into four constituencies, and by the Act of 1906-07, the representation was increased to seven.
The record of the original district of Alberta was as follows:
1887-W. W. Davis, Conservative
1891-W. W. Davis, Conservative
1896-Frank Oliver, Liberal
1900-Frank Oliver, Liberal
Then it goes on to state:
Under the act of 1902, Alberta was divided into four constituencies, Alberta, Calgary, Strathcona and Edmonton, the electoral records of which, up to 1908, were as follows-
And the members elected in the first election in 1904 were: Alberta, John Herron;
Calgary, M. S. McCarthy; Strathcona, Peter Talbot; and Edmonton, Frank Oliver.
I fail to understand how the department of northern affairs came to put out a press release of this kind. The inaccuracy is repeated in various other ways. For instance, only last night there was an editorial in the Ottawa Journal stating that Frank Oliver was the first elected member from Alberta, and so on.
I have, of course, no desire in the world to take anything away from the position Hon. Frank Oliver holds in the history of Alberta, and I fully agree with this plaque having been put up to his memory. The fault, however, was not that of the historic sites and monuments board. I have received a copy of the inscription on the plaque that was erected, and there is nothing incorrect on it and no statement that he was the first elected member for Alberta.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think the only thing the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources can do is issue another press release correcting the first one and apologizing for it. He should also give due credit to W. W. Davis, who was the first member elected for Alberta. I also suggest that a plaque should be erected to W. W. Davis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources should write a letter of apology to Mr. Rider Davis, the son of W. W. Davis and a barrister in Fort MacLeod at the present time.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think we are agreed that these were very great men. I would say particularly that Hon. Frank Oliver was a very great man. The people of Edmonton think so, as I gather from the number who turned out the other day. We want the statements that we make to be accurate, just as accurate as the plaques that we put on these buildings. I will certainly look into this matter, and I thank my hon. friend for drawing this reputed inaccuracy to my attention.
However, I think Alberta entered confederation in 1905, and the statement we made was

Questions
that Mr. Oliver was the first elected member from Alberta. He had represented, as had Mr. Davis, the Northwest Territories, which at that time included the great Canadian plains as well as everything north of them. In those days that man must have had the largest constituency in the world.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources did not catch the significance of all I stated. Alberta sent a member to parliament for a long time before it became a province. For ten years W. W. Davis was that member. He was succeeded by Frank Oliver. When the province was divided into four constituencies and sent four members to parliament at the time of becoming a province, the constituency of Alberta itself was represented by John Herron.



PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of special committee on procedure and organization-Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Fairweather: Is it proposed to make employer paid hospital insurance premiums subject to income tax and, if so (a) which provinces will be affected by this change in policy (b) what considerations support a policy which would permit different federal income tax provisions for different provinces?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: No. However, in the case of provincial hospital insurance plans which require that premiums be paid by the persons covered, if such premiums are paid by the employers for their employees, then these payments are taxable benefits to the employees, (a) Not applicable since there is no change in policy,
(b)	There is no difference between provinces as to the application of federal income tax provisions.


COST OF FILM &quot;MR. PEARSON&quot;
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	What was the total cost to the taxpayers of the film "Mr. Pearson"?
2.	Did the C.B.C. pay Mr. Richard Ballentine for his professional services in connection with the making of this film and, if so, how much was he paid?
[Mr. Laing.l


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Total payments were approximately $35,200.
2.	No. Payment was made to Intervideo Productions Limited of which firm Mr. Ballentine is president. Because this was a business arrangement in a field in which there is competition, it is not customary to require the corporation to disclose the amount paid for such services.


CROSSING OF NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has a report been received by the Minister of Public Works from Northumberland consultants in reference to the construction of a transportation link across the Northumberland strait and, if so, when was such report received?
2.	Does this report offer grounds for an earlier estimated time for the actual commencement of construction of the crossing?
3.	Has a request been received from the premier of Prince Edward Island for a copy of the said report?
4.	Has a copy been made available to Premier Shaw?
5.	What dominion government departments are studying the report?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes. A progress report was
received on May 29, 1964 and an amendment thereto on June 24, 1964.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	The report was commissioned by the Department of Public Works and is under study by that department with the departments of finance and transport who will report to the minister. No release will be made of the report until the studies are completed and reviewed by the minister and his colleagues.
5.	Answered by 4.


* DAUPHIN, MAN.  TOWN DIRECTORY
Mr. Forbes: 1.	Did any department or agency of the federal government engage Henderson Directories Limited of Winnipeg to compile the addresses and occupations of householders in the town of Dauphin, Manitoba and, if so, at what cost?
2.	Do all postal areas having letter carrier service engage private firms to compile a postal directory?
3.	Is the Post Office Department provided with a copy of the directory free of charge?
4.	Are the addresses in the directory examined by post office officials to determine if they are correct?
5.	Are the directories available to the public free of charge and, if not, what is the price of each copy and where may it be obtained?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. No.
2,	3, 4 and 5. No. The Post Office Department does, however, compile householder directories for those areas where a commercial directory is not available. The directories are set up by electoral districts and are available through postmasters at $2 per copy. A commercial directory is available for the town of Dauphin, Manitoba.


&quot;DO NOT SHIP&quot; LIST
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many people who were on the "do not ship" list have applied to Commander Robertson of the maritime appeals board, for reinstatement in the S.I.U. by (a) letter (b) personal visit (c) telephone (d) telegram?
2.	Of those who applied, how many have had their appeal heard?
3.	What, precisely, step by step, has the procedure been in hearing these cases?
4.	Of those who have appealed, how many have been reinstated and, what are the names of those reinstated?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisier of Labour):: 1,	2, 3, 4. The board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions have provided the following information:
The maritime appeals board is a quasi-judicial body which obtains its jurisdiction from the S.I.U. of Canada. It is thus an internal organ of the S.I.U. Within the limits imposed by the nature of its operations the following statistical information can be disclosed. Since the maritime appeals board was established, 38 former members have applied to have their cases heard:
A.	Nine have been reinstated, namely: Bigelow, Stanley; ChutskofT, Peter; Crimmins, T., reinstated upon payment of dues; Dalton, Patrick; Dronfield, William; Gregory, W.; Grubb, C., reinstated upon payment of dues; Hannan, C. L.; Williams, John N.
B.	Ten have been ruled eligible for reinstatement as probationary members upon application to the S.I.U. of Canada, namely: Bragg, William; Chambers, Ronald Arthur; Kendall, Louis; Langlais, Guy; Leclerc, Leo Joseph; Madeo, Eugene; Pothier, Antonio; Spears, Clyde; St. Laurent, Jean Paul; Wiseman, John.
C.	Ten are now before the appeals board,
namely:	Gardecke, Victor; Hall, William
Brearley; Mclntaggart, Michael; Morin, Edward; Neville, Richard; Osborne, William; Dower, Vincent; Plant, Real; Ranta, Henry; Savard, Jacques.
D.	Six are now before the appeals board awaiting proof of membership in the S.I.U.,
Questions
namely: Anderson, Max; Bath, David; Cameron, Gordon R.; Clement, Armand; McNeil, John James; Swam, Donald.
E.	Two not concerned with membership in S.I.U.-disagreement with union over arbitration of pay dispute, namely: Johnson, Warren F.; Johnson, Agnes.
F.	One appeal denied, namely:	Wood,
John J.


*MAIL THEFTS
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Since April 22, 1963, how many mail bags were stolen in Canada?
2.	What is the total amount of money thus stolen?
3.	What is the total value of the stolen parcels?
4.	What is the total number of the letters stolen?
5.	What action does the government intend to take in order to stop robberies of this type?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: 1.	Two hundred and ninety from April 22, 1963 until July 23, 1964.
2.	The amount of money stolen as a result of the theft of mail bags is $715,640.20.
3 and 4. The post office does not maintain a record of the value of parcels accepted for mailing or the number of ordinary letters enclosed in mail bags.
5. Postal robberies are not different from other robberies and the police forces which have the jurisdiction, take such action as they deem most appropriate in each case with the view to eliminating criminal activity of this type. Postal investigating officers extend to the police the fullest co-operation and assistance in cases involving the Post Office Department. The post office has been providing additional security where improvements of this type are practical.


R.C.M.P. POLICE DOGS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,603
Mr. Orlikow:: 1.	Does the R.C.M.P. use police dogs in its work?
2.	How many police dogs does the R.C.M.P. own?
3.	Where were these dogs trained; by whom were they trained?
4.	Where are these dogs kept permanently?
5.	What uses are made of these dogs?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: 1.	Yes.
2.	21.
3.	The majority of these police dogs were trained at the R.C.M. Police training kennels located at the Twin Maples farm, Ramsayville, Ontario. Some dogs received their training at the R.C.M. Police training kennels, Sydney, Nova Scotia, before these facilities were moved to Ramsayville, Ontario in 1961. These dogs are trained by qualified members of the

Questions
R.C.M. Police who are attached to the staff of our training kennels.
4.	On completion of training, the police dogs are transferred to various points throughout Canada and kept under the personal care of their masters. At present police dogs are located at the following locations: Corner Brook, Nfld., St. John's, Nfld., Sydney, N.S., Truro, N.S., Moncton, N.B., Ramsayville, Ont., Brandon, Man., Dauphin, Man., Stonewall, Man., Prince Albert, Sask., Saskatoon, Sask., Yorkton, Sask., Red Deer, Alta., Peace River, Alta., St. Albert, Alta., High River, Alta., Kamloops, B.C., Cloverdale, B.C., Nelson, B.C., Nanaimo, B.C.
5.	They are employed to a great extent in searching for lost and missing persons, particularly children; lost and missing property and objects which may have been used in the commission of an offence. They are also used as an investigational aid in the tracking of suspected criminals; in excise and liquor searches, and on rare occasions in defence of members of the force subjected to armed attack. They are particularly useful in searching for dangerous criminals in wooded or enclosed areas during the night where human senses are unable to detect the presence of other persons.


S.I.U. &quot;DO NOT SHIP&quot; LIST  REINSTATEMENT APPLICATIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Were the following people on the "do not ship" list of the S.I.U. of Canada: John Wood, Edward Morin, William Hall, Maurice Marrinan, Red Boulton, Omer Boudreau, Pat McManus, David Swam, Carmel Deguire, Ken Lewis, J. Romack, Mel Gran-dy, Mike Sheehan?
2.	How many of these people have applied to the maritime trustees for reinstatement in the S.I.U. and for permission to work again on Canadian ships?
3.	Have these applications been studied by the maritime trustees or by any other agency established by the trustees or by the S.I.U. of Canada?
4.	Have any of the applications of these people for reinstatement been approved and, if so, by whom?
5.	If the applications have been rejected, for what reasons have they been rejected?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1,	2, 3, 4, 5. The board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions have provided the following information:
(a) John Wood: The case appealed to the maritime appeals board, from expulsion from the S.I.U. of Canada by union trial. Appeal denied. Not on the D.N.S. list within the knowledge of the S.I.U. of Canada.

(b)	Edward Morin: The case appealed to the maritime appeals board from suspension from the S.I.U. of Canada by union trial. The case is presently before the maritime appeals board. Not on the D.N.S. list within the knowledge of the S.I.U. of Canada.
(c)	Maurice Marrinan: Reinstatement in S.I.U. ordered by the Quebec superior court. Reinstatement offered by S.I.U. of Canada. Not on the D.N.S. list within the knowledge of the S.I.U. of Canada.
(d)	Red Boulton: No record in board of trustees' files. Not on the D.N.S. list within the knowledge of the S.I.U. of Canada.
(e)	Omer Boudreau: Advised to apply to the maritime appeals board for reinstatement. No application received. Not on the D.N.S. list within the knowledge of the S.I.U. of Canada.
(f)	Pat McManus: Advised to apply to maritime appeals board for reinstatement. Letter returned, "address unknown". Appears in schedule 44 of the Norris report as having been placed on the D.N.S. list.
(g)	David Swam: No record with the board of trustees or the S.I.U. of Canada.
(h)	Carmel Deguire: No record with board of trustees. Not on the D.N.S. list within the knowledge of the S.I.U. of Canada.
(hh) William Hall: Appears in schedule 44 of the Norris report as having been placed on the D.N.S. list. Appeal pending.
(i)	Ken Lewis: Application form for appeal to maritime appeals board mailed on June 4, 1964. No reply. Never on D.N.S. list within the knowledge of the S.I.U. of Canada.
(j)	J. Romack: Advised by letter to appeal to maritime appeals board. No reply. Placed on D.N.S. list according to schedule 44 of the Norris report.
(k)	Mel Grandy: No record with board of trustees. Not on the D.N.S. list within the knowledge of the S.I.U. of Canada.
(l)	Mike Sheehan: Advised to appeal to the maritime appeals board. No reply.
As far as is known to the trustees the union possesses no record of a D.N.S. list and schedule 44 of the Norris report constitutes the only available record of such a list. No member of the S.I.U. of Canada has been barred from sailing since the imposition of trusteeship by the operation of a D.N.S. list or any equivalent.
With the absence of complete files on the D.N.S. list as it previously existed, it is impossible for the trustees or the union to state positively whether a man was on the D.N.S. list at any time. All steps are being taken, however, to obtain accurate information

on persons who may have suffered as a result of the existence of this list and to effect a restitution of membership rights.
The maritime appeals board is a quasijudicial body established by the S.I.U. of Canada. Disclosure of its reasons for accepting and rejecting appeals could prejudice its function and it is felt that details of its inner workings should not be disclosed.


IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, WATER STREET, YARMOUTH, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: Is the government giving consideration to carrying out an improvement program in the area known as the Bluenose public wharf district, Water street, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia which includes a town dump, a junk yard, and a collection of old boats, and, if so, when will this program be commenced?


Maurice Lamontagne: In November, 1963, the province of Nova Scotia forwarded to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation a request from the town of Yarmouth to investigate a proposal for the acquisition and clearance under section 23, N.H.A. of two areas. One of these areas is a site of approximately J acres at Water and Forest streets in the Bluenose public wharf district. Since then, discussions have been held with municipal officials concerning this proposal in relation to the need for redevelopment in other areas of the town. These discussions are continuing and it is expected that sufficient information will soon be available upon which a program of improvements could be considered by the municipality.


MASTER OF FISHERIES PATROL CRAFT &quot;SCATARI LIGHT&quot;
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Who was the master of the fisheries patrol craft Scatari Light prior to April 16, 1964?
2.	How long had the individual been master of the craft?
3.	What are his qualifications?
4.	Why was he transferred; was his transfer a promotion and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Is the former master of the Scatari Light a veteran of world war II?
6.	Is the present master of the Scatari Light a veteran?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisler of Fisheries):: 1.	Martin Patrick Picco.
2.	From May 11, 1959 to February 21, 1964.
3.	One year high school; navigation school, Toronto and Halifax. In March 1963 was issued certificate of competency as master,
Questions
home trade steamship, 350 tons and home trade tugboat.
4.	(a) Redisposition of vessel crew personnel; (b>
no; (c) answered by (a).
5.	No.
6.	No.


TIMMINS, ONT.  BENEFITS FROM MINERAL DISCOVERIES
Mr. Peters: What surveys have been conducted by either the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys or the Department of Industry to ascertain what role can be played by the federal government to ensure the maximum benefit to northern Ontario from the recent finds of copper and zinc in the Timmins area?


Maurice Lamontagne: No surveys of this type have
been made by the Department of Industry. However, the department is following closely developments in the Timmins area and is prepared to provide assistance to interested companies to help them arrive at a decision regarding the establishment of smelting facilities. Such assistance could include the granting of special tax concessions available to new manufacturing and processing enterprises which locate in designated areas of which the Timmins national employment service office area is one.
The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys carries out continuous mineral economic appraisals of the Canadian mineral industry, although it is not the role of the department to do assessments that are the normal responsibility of a company.
At this stage in the development of the northern Ontario copper-zinc developments at Timmins, some general assessments of employment have been made but no detailed surveys have been done relative to benefits that may accrue to that area.


NEW INDUSTRIES ESTABLISHED IN QUEBEC
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Under provisions of the Income Tax Act granting income tax deductions in certain districts, how many industries were established in the province of Quebec, and in what localities?
2.	What sums did each such industry invest?
3.	What is the number of employees working for each of such industries?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	The government is aware of 23 industries in the province of Quebec which have signified their intention to take advantage of the designated areas' tax incentives under section 71A of the Income Tax Act. These industries are planning a combined capital investment of over $63 million and will employ approxi-

Questions
mately 1,400 people. They are to be located in eight of the 13 N.E.S. office areas which have been designated in Quebec. Those firms with the shortest lead times to set-up are now reaching the production phase. The government is aware of eight of these which are now in commercial production. They are located in the designated N.E.S. office areas of Louiseville, Matane, St. Jean, Shawinigan and Val d'Or.
2.	The eight firms have estimated the following capital investments: $136,000, $121,000, $105,000, $90,000, $60,000, $42,000, $55,000, and $90,000, respectively.
3.	The eight firms have estimated that they
will be employing the following numbers of workers:	5, 60, 13, 39, 25, 8, 6 and 2,
respectively.


SUFFIELD COMMUNITY PASTURE
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	What was the cost of operation of the Suffield community pasture for the years 1961, 1962, and 1963?
2.	What were the total grazing fees collected for the years 1961, 1962, and 1963?
3.	Does the army find it much easier to control livestock on the bombing area since the establishment of the community pasture?
4.	Has the army command at Suffield issued any complaints with regard to part of their land being used as a community pasture and, if so, of what nature?
5.	Has the 1 cent per head per day which is collected for municipal purposes been distributed to all municipalities close to the pasture and from which cattle are drawn, in view of the fact that no land was taken from local improvement district No. 24 and, if not, for what reasons?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. 1961, $27,124.41; 1962, $28,480.24; 1963, $34,457.41.
2.	1961, $42,285.72; 1962, $35,178.22; 1963, $47,442.75.
3.	Stock in the community pasture are fenced in and controlled by P.F.R.A. staff. Establishment of this pasture has not altered the problem of control of stray cattle in the operating range. Impounding measures continue to be necessary on the same scale as in the past.
4.	The defence research board has not complained as the community pasture on the
S.E.S. range was establishing in 1961 to assist farmers in carrying cattle under the severe drought conditions of that year on a temporary basis only. The full range facility is required for the proper execution of the D.R.B. program at S.E.S.
5.	The answer to part 4 of question No. 1,541 indicated the levy of 1 cent per head per day had been received by local improvement district No. 24. This information was

based on tentative list of recipients to whom funds would be forwarded. Subsequent information has indicated the funds were paid to the Alberta department of municipal affairs for distribution to those local government agencies which provide local services in the areas adjacent to the Suffield pasture. The areas from which the cattle are received are not necessarily the areas to which the funds are to be distributed as the funds are for the purpose of assisting local governments which provide services adjacent to the pasture.


CANADIAN DELEGATION TO ICAO
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	What are the names of the president, vice president and members of the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization?
2.	Are each of these persons bilingual?
3.	What is the salary of each?
4.	Are their offices located in the international civil aviation organization building in Montreal?
5.	How many Canadian officials are attached to the international civil aviation organization?
[Translation1


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1, 2 and 3. Canada is one of the 27 members of the ICAO council and, as such, maintains a permanent delegation in Montreal. There are two Canadian government officials on the delegation: Mr. R. Duder, permanent representative of Canada at the ICAO who is bilingual and who gets $15,100 a year, and Mr. T. H. Prescott, elected member of ICAO's air navigation commission who is unilingual and who gets a salary of $10,400.
4.	The offices of the Canadian delegation are located in the International Aviation building which is also ICAO's headquarters in Montreal.
5.	234 Canadian citizens work at the secretariat of ICAO.
[Textl


S.I.U. STAFF CHANGES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many new employees have been taken on the staff of the S.I.U., since the appointment of the maritime trustees, in the positions of vice president, secretary treasurer, port agent, despatches or full time organizer?
2.	How many of the people occupying any of the positions listed above have resigned or have been removed since the maritime trustees were appointed, and (a) on what date did each terminate his service (b) for what reasons?
3.	(a) Who are the vice presidents of the S.I.U. of Canada and what vice presidencies do they hold (b) who are the port agents at Vancouver, Fort William, Thorold, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec city, and Halifax (c) who are the full time patrolmen of

Questions
the S.I.U. at each of these ports (d) who are the dispatchers of the S.I.U. at Montreal (e) who are the paid organizers-full time and part time-of the S.I.U. in each of the above ports (f) who is the secretary treasurer of the S.I.U. of Canada?
4.	(a) Do any of the persons taken on staff of the S.I.U. since the maritime trustees were appointed have criminal records and, if so, what is the name and record of each (b) have any of the new staff people hired since the maritime trustees were appointed ever been charged in court with committing any indictable offence and, if so, what was the charge?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1,	2, 3. Some of the positions listed are normally elected offices while others are staff positions to which employees are hired depending on the seasonal requirements of the industry. Information concerning staff employees is regarded as a matter of internal operation of the union, which unions are not normally required to divulge. The trustees feel such information is privileged and it would be a breach of their duty to make it public. The following elected officers are serving in positions as indicated:
Leonard J. McLaughlin, executive vice president, Montreal; Donald Swait, secretary treasurer, Montreal; Roderick Heinecky, vice president, west coast, Vancouver; Raymond Doucet, vice president, east coast, Quebec city; William Glasgow, port agent, Toronto; Stanley Devine, port agent, Halifax and Saint John; John Royce, elected patrolman, appointed agent, Fort William; Rene Turcotte, elected patrolman, appointed vice president in charge of organization, Montreal.
4. The release of such information even if it were available, would not, in the opinion of the trustees, be in the public interest.


CHARGES ON GOVERNMENT WHARVES
Mr. Groos: 1.	How many government wharves are there In each province?
2.	What is the scale of charges authorized to be levied on users of these wharves?
o.	Are the charges identical in each province and, if not, what are the differences?
4.	How much money has been collected in each province from users of these government wharves in the years 1962 and 1963?
i Qsa Ha,+u 3ny chanSes in policy been made since 1960 with respect to charges to be levied for use of government wharves and, if so. what were the


Maurice Lamontagne: Answer in so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: 20220-443*
1. Province	Number of wharves
Newfoundland	415
Nova Scotia	379
Prince Edward Island	106
New Brunswick	217
Quebec	408
Ontario	636
Manitoba	47
Saskatchewan	18
Alberta	35
British Columbia	385
Total	2,646
These wharves have been constructed by the Department of Public Works and transferred to the Department of Transport for administration and control, and include all federal wharves that are open to the public.
Answer in so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
The following answers refer, only to wharves administered by the Department of Transport under the Government Harbours and Piers Act:
2.	The schedule of charges is to be found in the government wharves regulations as established by authority of order in council P.C. 1964-104, January 23, 1964, and effective March 1, 1964.
3.	Yes.
4.	Gross collections:
Province	1962/63	1963/64Newfoundland Prince Edward	57,154.70	74,232.99Island	74,576.01	69,620.22Nova Scotia	115,840.67	149,281.45New Brunswick	39,732.24	45,587.51Quebec	401,358.79	388,317.92Ontario	250,107.16	399,446.44Manitoba	1,985.70	1,763.37Saskatchewan	1,565.43	1,559.92Alberta	1,453.25	1,202.00British Columbia	85,134.72	82,378.95Northwest Territories	4,095.55	4,818.151,033,004.22	1,218,208.925.	There has been a standard schedule of charges for the use of government wharves for many years. There has, therefore, been no change in policy in recent years but there has been increased effort to collect more realistic charges in the light of (a) increased construction and maintenance costs, and (b) to reduce to a minimum unfair government competition with private industry.
Questions


POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Cyr: Is a federal civil servant whose services come under the civil service commission allowed to take an active part in (a) federal politics on behalf of a member or a party during a non-electoral period (b) federal politics on behalf of a candidate or a party during an electoral campaign (c) provincial politics in favour of a member or a party during a non-electoral period (d) provincial politics in favour of a candidate or a party during an electoral campaign?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: It would not be appropriate to give an answer to this question, as it would be in the nature of a legal opinion. The matter is dealt with by section 61 of the Civil Service Act.


*C.B.C. COVERAGE OF GOLF CHAMPIONSHIP
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	How many C.B.C. personnel attended the Canadian open golf championship in Montreal?
2.	Of these, how many were (a) camera men (b) technicians (c) others?


John B. Stewart: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the 1964 Canadian open golf championship was given actuality coverage, simultaneously, on the four services of the C.B.C., English radio and television and French radio and television. There were 92 employees engaged in the project of which 11 were cameramen, 42 radio and television technical staff and 39 others including commentators, producers, script assistants, floor managers, scorekeepers, etc.


HUNGARIAN IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many immigrants who had fled from Hungary after the uprising were admitted to Canada?
2.	How many have since left Canada?
3.	How many have taken out Canadian citizenship?
4.	How many applicants for citizenship have been refused because of violation under the Criminal Code?
5.	How many applicants have been refused citizenship for other reasons?
6.	What was the total amount of money expended by the Canadian government on behalf of these immigrants?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. During the period 1956 to 1960, 37,727 Hungarian refugees were granted landed immigrant status in Canada. The maintenance of separate statistics in this respect was discontinued at the end of 1960 since

the bulk of the movement had been completed by that time.
2.	Canada exercises no form of exit control over persons wishing to leave the country whether they are citizens or legal permanent residents. Persons leaving Canada are not required to report their departure to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and consequently this department would have no knowledge as to how many have left Canada since they were admitted.
3.	No statistics are kept which relate to the number of former Hungarian citizens who escaped following the 1956 uprising and who subsequently acquired Canadian citizenship. The majority of such persons would have become eligible for citizenship in 1962. It is known that some, namely the children or the wives of Canadian citizens, were eligible for and were granted citizenship from 1957 onwards. The following table shows the number of former Hungarians who have been granted Canadian citizenship during the calendar years 1957 to 1963, inclusive, and for the first six months of 1964: 1957, 3,242; 1958, 1,651; 1959, 971; 1960, 859; 1961, 727; 1962, 14,604; 1963, 6,551; 1964, 2,403, (January 1 to June 30).
4.	The courts do not report statistics of this nature. Therefore no information on this question is available.
5.	The courts do not report statistics of this nature either. Therefore no information on this question is available.
6.	The immigration branch conducted a review several years ago of those readily identifiable expenditures which were directly attributable to the Hungarian refugee movement during the period April, 1956, to February,
1961.	These included such items as ocean and inland transportation, accommodation and maintenance in Canada and grants to the provinces under the special Hungarian refugee agreements and which amounted to $15,231,696.14. It must be remembered, however, that this does not represent the complete picture of the branch's financial outlay since it is not possible to distinguish what portion of the other over-all operational costs such as salaries, communications, travel, etc., can be attributed to the Hungarian refugee movement.


CENTRAL VICTUALLING DEPOT, ESQUIMALT, B.C.
Mr. Chaiterton: 1.	Has the central victualling depot at the dockyard. Esquimalt, B.C., been taken over by the army service corps and, if so (a) on what date did the takeover take place (b) what did the staff of this depot consist of before the takeover (c)

what does the staff consist of as of the end of July, 1964 (d) what is the reason for the increase of staff?
2.	Prior to this takeover did civilian drivers make deliveries and, if so, what was the annual cost per civilian driver and what is the present annual cost per army driver including training, pay and allowances, recruiting, uniforms and all direct and indirect costs?
3.	Is the army service corps at the depot providing additional space for its operations and, if so, for what reason and at what cost?
4.	Has the naval hospital in Esquimalt now been formally changed into a tri-service institution and, if so, (a) what was the staff complement before the change (b) what is it now, and (c) what is the reason for the increase in staff?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes, (a) 1 April, 1964
(b)	one officer, 16 men and one civilian typist, (c) seven army, 12 RCN, three civilians, (d) as army personnel have had no previous experience in victualling ships, it was agreed that naval personnel would remain at the depot until 1 October, 1964. On that date the numbers will be reduced to those needed to run the operation.
2.	Yes, $4,555.20 per year. No change has been made in the use of civilian drivers.
3.	The army are using exactly the same space formerly occupied by the RCN. However, prior to the transfer it was approved to carry out extensive repairs to the cold storage facilities which has resulted in cold storage space being rented from the Canada Packers' plant at Ogden Point while the work is in progress.
4.	Yes, the hospital at HMCS Naden became part of the Canadian forces medical service on 15 January, 1959- (a) 104; (b) 96;
(c)	not applicable.


ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION AND EXPORTS
Mr. Caoueile: 1.	What amount of electric power was produced in the province of Quebec during the years 1961, 1962 and 1963, and what proportion of that production was exported from Quebec?
2.	What amount of electric power was produced in the province of Ontario during the years 1961, 1962 and 1963, and what proportion of that production was exported from Ontario?
3.	What amount of electric power from the province of Quebec was exported to the United States?
4.	What amount of Canadian electric power was exported to the United States?

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): 1 and 3.
Questions
Electric Energy-Province of Quebec Energy-millions of KWH
Year	Generated	Delivered to other provinces	Exported to U.S.A.1961	49,762	6,196l	741962	50,129	6,1962	391963	49,819	5,222s	24'Includes	340	million	KWH	delivered	to
Ontario for export to U.S.A.
"Includes	269	million	KWH	delivered	to
Ontario for export to U.S.A.
"Includes	243	million	KWH	delivered	to
Ontario for export to U.S.A.
Electric Energy-Province of Ontario Energy-millions of KWH
2.		Delivered	
		to other	Exported
Year	Generated	provinces	to U.S.A.1961	34,872	282	3,8911962	35,259	228	3,7791963	37,501	265	3,321Electric Energy-Canada	Energy-millions of KWH	4.	Year	Exported to U.S.A.	1961	4,180	1962	4,084	1963	3,612	[Text]


CANADIAN VOTE ON UN TRADE RESOLUTION
Mr. Bell: With respect to the United Nations conference on trade and development, held in March, 1964, in Geneva, and attended by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was the special principle reading as follows: ''All countries should co-operate in devising measures to help developing countries to build up maritime and other means of transport for their economic development to ensure the unhindered use of international transport facilities, the improvement of terms of freight and insurance for the developing countries and to promote tourism m these countries in order to increase their earnings and reduce their expenditure on invisible trade', adopted by the plenary session of said conference and, if so, how did Canada vote and for what reason?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: The special principle referred to was adopted in the plenary session by 92 in favour, 7 against, with 17 abstentions. Canada together with a number of other industrialized countries abstained because it was felt that the special principle should make it clear that the building up of

Questions
maritime transport in developing countries should be based on sound economic criteria.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 64-1852
Mr. Aiken: 1.	With reference to competition No. 64-1852 of the civil service commission, to what departments of government will successful applicants be posted?
2.	For which positions will a knowledge of both the English and French languages be required?
3.	Have any appointments been made under this competition?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the civil service commission as follows:
1.	The civil service commission.
2.	A knowledge of both the English and French languages will be required for positions in those areas of operations where the incumbent will be required to maintain liaison with educational institutions and other sources of supply and to examine candidates in the French or English language as needed.
3.	No.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 64-661
Mr. Aiken: 1.	With reference to competition No. 64-661 of the civil service commission for a supervisor of construction accounting, Department of Public Works, what particular duties require the ability to speak, read and write in both English and French?
2.	In this competition does a bilingual person have priority over the statutory preference for veterans?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the civil service commission as follows:
1.	The incumbent of this position will be required to deal orally and by correspondence with contractors, consultants, etc., some of whom are French speaking.
2.	To be successful candidates must be bilingual. The statutory preference for veterans will apply in ranking the successful candidates.


CREATION OF CREDIT AND CAPITAL
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	For the period January 1, 1954 to December 31, 1963, what was the increase of the money supply or the creation of new credit or capital?
2.	What was the amount for each year?
3.	What was the percentage of increase for each year?
4.	For each year during that period, what was the increase of the new capital of the Bank of Canada?
5.	For each year during that period, what was the total increase of new credit in commercial or chartered banks?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1, 2 and 3. See Table 1 attached.
4.	The capital of the Bank of Canada has been $5,000,000 during the period named. The bank's rest fund was $10,050,367 at the end of 1953 and 1954, $20,403,347 at the end of 1955, and $25,000,000 at the end of each year since 1955.
5.	See Table 2 attached.


TABLE 1
[Stage Direction]
As at Dec. 31	Currency in hands of public	Canadian dollar deposit liabilities of chartered banks (less float)	Total of currency and bank deposits	Increase in total of currency and bank deposits during year	
		(Millions of dollars)	Millions of dollars Percentage		
1953	. 1,430	8,359	9,789	-	-1954	. 1,458	8,856	10,314	525	5.41955	. 1,550	9,847	11,397	1,083	10.51956	. 1,605	9,833	11,438	41	.41957	. 1,667	10,256	11,923	485	4.21958	. 1,781	11,466	13,247	1,324	11.11959	. 1,832	11,360	13,193	-54	.41960	. 1,876	12,037	13,914	721	5.51961	. 1,959	13,205	15,163	1,249	9.01962	. 1,994	13,689	15,683	520	3.41963	. 2,084	14,980	17,064	1,381	8.87,275

[Stage Direction]
Increases in major categories of chartered bank assets
Increases in major categories of chartered bank liabilities
	Loans	Non-govt. securities	Govt. securities	Deposits at Bank of Canada and Bank of Canada notes	Net All other assets foreign assets (net)		Total of foregoing	Canadian $ deposit Shareholders' liabilities equity (as in table above)	
				(Millions of dollars)					
1954	56	95	553	-97	a	-10	599	102	4971955	808	448	-254	49	-41	27	1,037	46	9911955	465	141	-644	42	46	22	72	86	-141957	179	91	225	-16	26	-3	502	79	4231958	-80	406	872	135	-55	13	1,291	81	1,2101959	707	77	-711	-48	-67	49	7	113	-1061960	465	-55	254	39	50	2	755	78	6771961	386	31	741	104	-50	23	1,235	67	1,1681962	902	28	-428	66	-103	45	510	26	4841963	590	-10	574	68	104	20	1,346	55	1,291
Questions
Questions
[Stage Direction]
ITextl

Mr. Laprise: 1.	To date, how many and which countries have indicated their intention of participating in the 1967 Canadian world exhibition?
2.	How many other countries are expected to announce their intention of participating in the exhibition?
3.	As a result of the interest shown in the exhibition is it expected that there will be a shortage of space on Notre-Dame and Ste Helene islands, to the extent that space reserved for green or water areas will be used to increase the size of buildings or for the construction of new ones?
4.	If less area is devoted to greenery and water, will the exhibition be less appealing in appearance?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. To date, sixteen (16) countries have officially announced their participation in the 1967 world exhibition. They are: Canada, United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Morocco, Netherlands, Austria, West Germany, Venezuela, Israel, Iran, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Malaysia, United States of America.
2.	There are negotiations on the way with many countries and it is expected that a substantial number will announce their participation shortly.
3.	Last fall, when the master plan was being prepared, it was impossible to determine the exact area which would be required without knowing the number of participants and the lot sizes they would like.
Consequently, it was planned to have green and water areas which could allow for expansion or contraction for exhibition area.
Up to the present time, the green and water areas have not been changed to any great extent.
4.	We envision no major diminishing of area devoted to: greenery and water which would affect the appearance of the exhibition.


TRAVEL BUREAU BRANCHES, NEW YORK AND OVERSEAS
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the estimated cost of operating the Canadian government travel bureau's branch overseas for the fiscal year 1964-65?
2.	How many employees are associated with the operation of the above noted branch?
3.	How many inquiries have been received to date in association with this branch's operation?
4.	What is the estimated cost of operating the Canadian government travel bureau's branch in New York city for the fiscal year 1964-65?
5.	How many employees are associated with the operation of the above noted branch?
6.	How many inquiries have been received to date in association with this branch's operation?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The estimated cost of operating the Canadian government travel bureau's branch office at 19 Cockspur street, London, England, during 1964-65 is $115,000.
2.	The establishment of this office consists of five continuing employees posted from Canada, three locally engaged personnel, and one temporary emergency appointee.
3.	The following is a breakdown of the number of inquiries received at this office: (a) April 1/64 to June 30/64, 21,471 (fiscal year); (b) January 1/64 to June 30/64, 47,959 (calendar year).
4.	The estimated cost of operating the Canadian government travel bureau's branch office in New York city during 1964-65 is $103,925.
5.	The establishment of the New York office consists of five continuing employees posted from Canada and one locally engaged seasonal employee.
6.	The following is a breakdown of the number of inquiries received at this office: (a) April 1/64 to June 30/64, 21,432 (fiscal year); (b) January 1/64 to June 30/64, 34,119 (calendar year).


FEDERAL BUILDING, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: What is the government's intention with regard to the construction of a new federal building at Amherst, Nova Scotia?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This matter is under consideration.


FEDERAL BUILDING, BRIDGEWATER, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: Has the government given any consideration to constructing a new federal building at Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, adequate in size to contain the post office and other federal agencies in the town?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Consideration is being given to the construction of a new federal building in Bridgewater.


CENTENNIAL COMMISSION SUPPORT FOR INDIAN CONFERENCE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Was the recent national Indian council conference at Sault Ste. Marie supported in any way, including financially, by the centennial commission?
2.	Was any representative or agent of the centennial commission at the conference in Sault Ste. Marie and, if so, did he or she stay with the council members at the motel from which some of the council members were evicted?

3.	Was any money supplied by the centennial commission used to fly any delegates to the council meeting and, if so, how much and for what persons?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICE FOR NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Tucker: Has the government given consideration to the opening of a regional office in Newfoundland in which to conduct unemployment insurance business for the province of Newfoundland and, if so, what has been the decision?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The unemployment insurance commission has considered the need for a regional office to conduct unemployment insurance business for the province of Newfoundland. It was decided that a regional office for Newfoundland could not be justified.


CONTEST FOR CENTENNIAL MUSICAL THEME
Mr. Prittie: 1.	Has the national centennial administration received a proposal from the Richmond centenary council for a Canada-wide contest among musical composers for a march to be adopted as the official musical theme for all centennial functions?
2.	Has the administration rendered a decision on this proposal?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
2. No.


EXTENSION OF WHARF, LIVERPOOL, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: Is the government giving any consideration to extending the present government wharf at Liverpool, Queens county, Nova Scotia, which is presently inadequate to handle the shipping in this area?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Yes, consideration is being given to extending this wharf.


REPAIRS TO TUC, &quot;GLENLIVET II&quot;
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the various tenders for repairs to the tug Glenlivet II?
2.	To whom will the contract be awarded?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Ferguson Industries Limited, Pic-tou, N.S., $2,715; Sydney Engineering & Dry Dock Limited, Sydney, N.S., $6,001.60.
2. The contract has been awarded to Ferguson Industries Limited.
Questions


PURCHASE OF JET PLANES FOR CABINET USE
Mr. Coates: 1.	Have negotiations been entered into and/or completed for the purchase of two DC-8 jets for use to transport the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet and other V.I.P.'s?
2.	If so, what is the price for such aircraft?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.
^MEETING WITH MINISTER RESPECTING FEED GRAIN SUBSIDY


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	On what date is the Minister of Forestry or his officials receiving a delegation representing the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which will "attempt to negotiate a more equitable and easily administered policy" relative to the interim freight assistance program for feed grains?
2.	Will an opportunity be given to members of parliament from areas affected to participate in the meeting with the delegation?
3.	What further changes in policy are contemplated which will serve to (a) lower rather than increase prices of feed, and (b) make the method of administration of the interim policy less complicated and expensive?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Forestry):: 1. The Minister of Forestry and his officials will receive the delegation of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on Friday, August 21, 1964.
2.	The meeting is essentially to give an opportunity to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to express their views privately to the minister.
3.	Such changes if any will depend upon the outcome of the meeting.


TENDERS FOR OFFICE SPACE REQUIREMENTS, OTTAWA
Mr. Lambert: 1.	How many tenders were received with respect to the tender calls made by the Department of Public Works for office space requirements for (a) the Department of Labour (b) the department of northern affairs?
2.	What were the names of the tenderers with respect to the above, and what is the amount of the annual rental with respect to each tender?
3.	What was the location of the property with respect to each tender?
4.	Were the respective tenderers the owners of the properties in question and, if not, what was the nature of their beneficial interest in the property?
5.	If any property was subject to the exercise of an option (a) was any option exercised subsequent to the optioning of tenders, or (b) dropped subsequent to the optioning of tenders and, if so, in either case?
6.	Was any mortgage financing on either property for which lease contracts have been signed con-

Questions
tingent upon the securing of a long term lease with the government of Canada and, if so, which ones?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Forty one interested parties took out project briefs and six tenders were submitted from four companies for both requirements.
2. Names of Tenderers Laurentian Realty Limited, proposal "A" proposal "B"
Campeau Construction Ltd. Ottawa Commercial Realties Limited
Assaly Construction Limited
Annual rental

The sixth proposal was from the Campeau Construction Limited who offered to accommodate the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in addition to the Department of Labour in the same building at the same proportionate per annum rate.
3.	The property locations were as follows: Laurentian Realty Limited, south side of Laurier between Kent and Bank streets. Campeau Construction Limited, west side of Kent street between Laurier and Gloucester streets. Ottawa Commercial Realties, north side of Laurier west between O'Connor and Metcalfe streets. Assaly Construction Limited, north side of Laurier between Bank and O'Connor.
4.	Laurentian Realty Limited obtained an option on the property in question on May 29, 1964, to be exercised up to and including the 30th day of November 1964. Campeau Construction Limited owned the property. Ottawa Commercial Realties Limited owned the property. Assaly Construction Limited held a letter of commitment to grant an option dated July 16, 1964.
5.	It is the custom of the department to deal with persons having a firm interest in the property. It is also common commercial practice to do so. In this specific case the department asked the bidders to provide proof of their control of the site whether by ownership or by option and in the event of the latter stipulated that the options run for a period of six months from the date of closing of tenders. The department has not ascertained whether any of the options in question were either exercised or dropped following the opening of tenders.
It is assumed that in section (a) and (b) of the question the word "optioning" should read "opening".
6.	No knowledge of this.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
As of this date, what scholarships, bursaries, loans or other financial aid (in kind, number and amount) does the government of Canada make available to (a) undergraduate medical students (b) postgraduate medical students (c) undergraduate dental students (d) postgraduate dental students (e) undergraduate nurses (f) postgraduate nurses (g) undergraduate pharmacists?
Return tabled.


EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF INDICTABLE OFFENCE
Mr. Prillie: Has the civil service commission or any of the following departments or agencies of the government any regulation or rule which states that persons who have been convicted of an indictable offence shall not be employed and, if not, how many persons in this category were accepted for employment in 1962 and 1963: Department of Justice:	Department of Trade and Commerce:
Department of National Health and Welfare; Department of Veterans Affairs:	Department of
Defence Production: Department of Agriculture; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; national film board; dominion coal board; national capital commission; board of broadcast governors?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the materials tabled yesterday by the Minister of Public Works satisfy motion No. 157, and that, consequently, this motion will be withdrawn.


Mr. Lambert:: That is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: And I ask that motion No. 134
be allowed to stand.



OTTAWA-TENDER CALLS FOR OFFICE SPACE REQUIREMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 157-Mr. Lambert:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the tender calls issued by the Department of Public Works for office space requirements for the Department of Labour and for the department of northern affairs.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, not in any way intruding on the questions which were asked yesterday regarding the elusive Mr. Banks. I should like to ask the minister whether, having regard to the unusual course that has been taken in connection with the Banks case-his ability to get out of the country if in fact he has done so, and all these things of that nature-he does not think a probe into the whole question regarding Mr. Banks should be made in order to remove some of the suspicions that are in the minds of people in respect of the elusive nature of this gentleman.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, surely there has been nothing unusual in the dealings of the Department of Justice and other departments in relation to Mr. Banks. I think in view of the facts as they have been stated, namely in relation to the stand taken by the crown concerning first the opposition to bail and second the insistence on a very high bail, it would take a really very suspicious person to still be suspicious.
I may add this in relation to Mr. Banks' whereabouts. I have nothing more to report than what I did not state yesterday. The bench warrant which has been issued against him has been remitted to and is presently in the hands of the provincial police of Quebec, and the R.C.M.P. has offered all cooperation for the purpose of locating the object of the bench warrant.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, everything was answered but the question. I will elucidate what I had in mind so the minister will have that information. He said one would have to be suspicious if one were to raise any doubt regarding this man. I am not going into that question. One just has to look at the period of years that he has been in Canada and the protection that he has apparently received from the department of immigration and elsewhere to answer that suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the hon.
gentlemen of the Liberal party over to the right have a personal interest in this matter. My question is this. Is there going to be an investigation by the Department of Justice into the degree to which this man has been able to flout the laws of this country? Will 20220-444J
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Justice tell us whether there has been any request made of the United States immigration authorities to ascertain whether he crossed into the United States and, if so, when?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear in my mind that there is no reason to bring about an investigation such as is suggested. However, I agree with the right hon. gentleman that to the extent that information might be obtainable from the United States, it would be proper for me to ascertain whether any such request has been made.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether up to the present time his department or counsel retained by the federal government have asked the United States about this man, as to whether he crossed the line? Surely that would have been one of the first things done.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a
position to answer this particular question at the moment.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Does he have the impression that Mr. Banks is still in Canada or does he feel that he has fled the country? What is the minister's personal impression at this time?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect and friendship for the hon. member for Villeneuve, and without trying to evade the question, I feel it would not be proper for me to express any feeling which is not corroborated by facts.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest in and importance of this matter, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has asked or contemplates asking the F.B.I. in the United States or Interpol to determine the location of Hal Banks.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this seemed to be implied in the question which was put to me by the Leader of the Opposition-


Harold Edward Winch: I am asking if the minister has requested the F.B.I. or Interpol to do this.


An hon. Member:: Get Perry Mason.


Guy Favreau: -but I am unable to answer that question at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so there will be no misunderstanding may I say it is not the

Inquiries of the Ministry F.B.I. I have in mind but the Department of Justice.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister believe that $25,000 bail for a free spender like Hal Banks is a large amount?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think I must answer that question. I made it clear yesterday that it would be contempt of court on my part to comment on the decision as to bail which has been rendered by the chief justice of the court of appeal of Quebec.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why does the Minister of Justice insist that Mr. Banks' bail was high? He is the one who has been insisting that this is high bail.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the report that Great Britain has withdrawn 198 troops from its contingent in the United Nations Cyprus force. Was the Canadian government consulted regarding this matter? Is this the first of a series of withdrawals, or is this the only withdrawal which is contemplated by the government of the United Kingdom?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on the 25th of June the secretary of state for commonwealth relations announced that it was the intention of the British government to reduce the size of their contingent in the United Nations force, which at that time numbered 1,800, to between 1,100 and 1,200 men. It is in consequence of that statement that the strength of the British contingent as of the 14th of August was reduced to 1,034.
However, this figure is not to be regarded as completely final because part of the reduction effected consists of troops which are being rotated. There are indications that when this rotation has been completed the figure for the United Kingdom contingent will be increased to the point where the British and Canadian contingents will be roughly equivalent in size. The figure for the Canadian

contingent as of the 14th of August was 1,130. British logistic support, which is of course of vital importance to the whole force, is being maintained at its present level.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give the house the assurance that there will be no unilateral withdrawal of Canadian troops until such time as the United Nations itself decides that they can no longer fill a useful role as a peace keeping force in Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will remember that I dealt with this question some time ago, and within the context of what I said then, of course, the decision is one for the United Nations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a further supplementary question with reference to the announcement that an agreement has been reached between the United Nations and Archbishop Makarios regarding the partial lifting of the blockade against the Turkish Cypriots. I would like to ask the minister whether this does not make it clear that the government of Cyprus has been blockading the Turkish Cypriots and seeking to starve them into submission, and whether this does not make it perfectly apparent that Archbishop Makarios, behind the screen of the United Nations peace keeping force, has been systematically seeking to liquidate his opposition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's commentary will speak for itself. There is an agreement now with the government of Cyprus, arranged by the United Nations representatives, to provide for the immediate re-establishment of the water supply in the affected area and to provide for an adequate flow of food and fuel. This arrangement also assumes that the Turkish Cypriots would guarantee freedom of movement for all civilians in the Kokkina and Lefka areas. Provision has been made for the movement of Turkish Cypriots from the Kokkina area under United Nations forces supervision. Finally, the entry of food and fuel into the Turkish Cypriot sector "in reasonable amounts" to be determined by the international committee of the Red Cross has been provided for, with an immediate allocation of kerosene made to relieve the present acute shortage of fuel.
The humanitarian aspect of the situation has been put in the hands of the international committee of the Red Cross, with the full backing and assistance of the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In regard to the continuing violence in the eastern Congo and Burundi, can the minister tell us whether any effort is presently being made by the United Nations to prevent any further bloodshed in the eastern Congo and to resettle the Watusi tribe that has come across into the Congo from Rwanda?
I also have a related question referring to questions posed last week. How important is the communist Chinese influence behind these disturbances, so far as the government is aware?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any precise answer to the last question. I stated recently that there was evidence of this kind of penetration. There have been discussions initiated by the United States, between Mr. Harriman, and the Belgian foreign minister with regard to the situation in the Congo.


Robert Norman Thompson: As a supplementary question in view of the fact that two prominent United Nations officials were killed yesterday, has there been any communication with the United Nations or any indication by the United Nations of action being planned?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon.
friend knows, the United Nations force has left the Congo. There continues to be a United Nations office there, but beyond that I cannot offer any further information.



MALAYSIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of reports in today's Globe and Mail that President Sukarno of Indonesia is promoting a large demonstration, with shouts of "Destroy our enemies, Britain and America" being carried on, would the government now decide to stop handing out Canadian taxpayers' money to aid this man, and give it to our friends in the area instead?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said yesterday, I will give consideration to the wisdom of the suggestion made at that time by the hon. member and renewed by him today. I would point out, however, that the assistance given to Indonesia is not in the form of military aid. It represents the continuation of a policy which was pursued by the former administration, and up to now, has been observed by this government. I believe Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United Nations specialized agencies are all giving non-military assistance to Indonesia. They have not indicated that as a result of President Sukarno's actions toward Malaysia there is any intention on their part to curtail such non-military assistance. However, the matter is being reviewed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house the nature of the aid which is being given to Indonesia? Is it mainly food and technical assistance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is wheat flour and some technical assistance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are not going to make any friends in Indonesia by refusing to help feed them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is why I said I could go no further than examine the suggestion made by the hon. member for Oxford.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the secretary of state not agree that the economy of Indonesia is in a very bad condition, and that giving aid to President Sukarno to help him out in this way is helping him in his war-like activities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe that giving assistance to countries necessarily means we are furthering their ideological objectives. We are sending wheat to China, but I do not believe the hon. member for Qu'Appelle could be branded as a supporter of communist China.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The secretary of state has suggested we are giving wheat to China. We are selling it to China.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I thank the hon. member for telling us the obvious.

Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



QUEBEC-ARDA PROJECTS IN NORTHWESTERN COUNTIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. Does he intend, in co-operation with the Quebec provincial authorities, to set up rural development programs for the ridings of northwestern Quebec, that is, the constituencies of Villeneuve, Chap-leau and Pontiac-Temiscamingue?
More specifically, did he receive requests from the Quebec government to encourage the construction of slaughter-houses and cold storage facilities designed to meet the needs of that area?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the initiative in this field is the sole responsibility of the Quebec government. We have received no request as yet in regard to the matters raised by the hon. member. [Text]



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of reports that the Ontario legislation respecting private pension plans does not provide the amount of portability that was anticipated, could we not in this parliament compensate for this disappointment by expediting action on the Canada pension plan, and toward that end could not the new resolution be put on the order paper at an early date?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we are presently examining the whole question of portability with the provinces. So far as expediting the pension legislation is concerned I would be very glad, Mr. Speaker, to approve and support any step that can be taken toward that end, and for that purpose to finish as soon as possible the debate on the resolution now before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister not aware of the fact that if the resolution respecting the Canada pension plan were on the order paper the desire of all members to get to that order of business might shorten the flag debate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that whether the resolution is on the order paper or not, this is an item of business we will proceed with as soon as we can after the flag resolution is settled.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the latter statement on the part of the Prime Minister does he now give the assurance that before we adjourn, if the flag resolution is passed, the pension resolution will be brought in and the pension legislation brought before the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I have already informed the house, when the flag resolution is disposed of we hope to take a very well earned recess, and immediately after the recess we will be in a position to proceed not only with the pension resolution but with the pension legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is not the question I asked. Will the Prime Minister, in the interests of the Canadian people, give the assurance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -that this is going to be introduced; not the second or third revised edition of the Minister of National Health and Welfare but a final one that will assure that the pension legislation will receive immediate attention? If he does we will be behind him on the pension legislation 100 per cent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad, Mr. Speaker, to give that assurance and I hope my right hon. friend will, in his turn, give me an assurance that we will be finished with the flag resolution in time to deal with the pension legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, apparently it is to be postponed until after a vacation. I ask the Prime Minister, is the legislation drafted?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we will be ready to proceed with the resolution and the legislation, and if the right hon. gentleman will only agree to some reasonable time limit on the debate on the flag resolution we can go right ahead with the pension resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I put it to the Prime Minister that the work has not been completed, the legislation has not been drafted and final agreement with the provinces regarding portability has not been attained.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as is often the case my right hon. friend is ill informed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister, at the adjourned meeting he is going to have with the party leaders tomorrow, will discuss the possibility of shortening the flag debate and getting the first stage of the pension legislation over before a recess.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad indeed to discuss that matter and I would hope, as a result of the meeting tomorrow, as a first step in that desirable course we might agree on a time limit that will bring debate on the flag resolution to an end at a reasonable time, and then we can proceed at once with the pension resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Monleith:: Closure.


John George Diefenbaker: After all the evasion indulged in by the Prime Minister will he now answer me definitely? Has the legislation been prepared, and has there been agreement with the provinces on the question of portability? Why doesn't he answer that? Why does he evade with all of this?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the agreement with the provinces has been completed, and the legislation is being drafted and will be ready for the house as soon as my right hon. friend will agree to put an end to the filibuster on the flag resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me we have had considerable discussion on this matter. The time devoted to the question period is very short today, and if there are only one or two more supplementaries I hope we could get through with them very quickly.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Would he not be prepared, for instance, to consider the feasibility of a quick legislation for a personal pension plan in favour of the Leader of the Opposition, so that the House of Commons may get rid of him forever.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be delighted to give the most favourable consideration to that proposal were it not for the knowledge that my
Inquiries of the Ministry right hon. friend does not approve of increases in the income of members of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this last question to the right hon. gentleman further evidence of the close alliance with the Creditistes?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: In reply to questions raised yesterday by the hon. member for St. Paul and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and following my declaration of last Friday on the adjustment statement program affecting immigrants of Chinese origin, I have reviewed the situation in the light of the experience of the last few days. I think hon. members will be interested to know that on Monday alone approximately 400 immigrants of Chinese origin came forward to regularize their status in Canada, which indicates to me that there are still a large number of this category of immigrants who have not taken advantage of this program.
In view of the above, the date of September 1 will apply only to individuals entering Canada on or after that date, and I have so advised my officials. This means in effect that the adjustment statement program will continue for the time being to apply to immigrants of Chinese origin who have entered the country previously. It seems there is a consensus that this program should come to an end. I sincerely hope the members of the Chinese community will continue to exercise their prerogatives and come forward to regularize their status. I intend to keep a close watch on the situation, and will report to the house at an early opportunity.
I will communicate the contents of my answer of today to the editors of the Chinese language newspapers in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does Your Honour not feel that statements such as the one just made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-and I may say in passing that I believe all of us welcome it-should be made on motions, particularly on Wednesday when lengthy announcements of this sort cut into the time allotted for questions?


René Tremblay: I was replying to two questions which had been asked yesterday.

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether the suggestion made yesterday by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will be accepted, in order that Chinese may get three months' notice if there is a change in policy?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, this suggestion, like all others which have been made, is being looked into, and I shall be glad to consider them when the program is brought to an end.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister without Portfolio.
Could the minister tell us whether his order for three leaf flags was placed with Japanese manufacturers?


Hon. Yvon Dupuis (Minisler without Portfolio):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the United Nations and is based on the action of the United States house of representatives in voting unanimously to urge that country's delegation to press for steps to be taken under article 19 to deprive delinquent United Nations members of their voting rights. I should like to ask the secretary of state whether similar instructions are being issued to our representative at the United Nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Actions taken in the legislature of another country are, of course, matters for that country alone. As to the course Canada will take, the government will of course give our delegates the necessary instructions when the assembly opens. But article 19 is clear. The international court

of justice has given an opinion as to the legal obligations it entails. I would hope, however, that it would be possible for the Soviet union and other delinquents to make payments, even partial payments, so as to avoid any confrontation in the matter.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the increasing cost of living in many parts of northern Manitoba, and in view of the fact that northern allowances for some federal employees have been drastically reduced while in some areas northern allowances for other federal employees in other departments have remained unchanged, will the Postmaster General look into the situation concerning employees of his department in Thompson, Manitoba, who I understand have suffered drastic reductions in northern allowance payments?


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


Robert Simpson: Your Honour has ruled that this is a question for the order paper, but these people have just been advised in recent days that their allowances are to be cut off, or drastically reduced, and I was wondering whether the Postmaster General would not look into this situation.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Doucett (Lanark):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the winter house building incentive bonus is being increased from $500 to $750.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, there is no intention to increase the amount of the winter house building bonus.



PAYMENT OF TELEPHONE BILLS OF CREDITISTE MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.

Would the Minister of Finance tell the house whether the government intends to pay the telephone bills of the Caouette's Rallie-ment members which amount to $1,600, with two especially noticeable, being in the amounts of $457.65 and $412.55?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is out of order.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Labelle who has asked a question should start by minding his own business.


Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: But he pays his bills.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMPLETION OF TRANSLATION OF BEAUCHESNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Quebec East I promised to make a statement concerning the French edition of Beauchesne. On August 7, 1964 my colleague the Secretary of State, in answer to a similar question, indicated that the French edition would be ready at the end of this month. I have been informed this morning that sufficient copies of the French edition will be received from the publisher for distribution on or before Tuesday next.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, August 18, consideration of the motion by Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. More.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ros-thern.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, I should like first-
Canadian Flag


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding-


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to advise the house that members of the New Democratic party spoke to me just before I came into the chamber, and it slipped my mind momentarily. I believe there was general agreement that the hon. member for Greenwood would be the next speaker. I am wondering, therefore, whether the hon. member for Rosthern would stand aside for the moment.


Edward Nasserden: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, this house, and perhaps you yourself, sir, will have observed that except for a commendably brief and witty speech by the hon. member for New Westminster, the members of this party have not until now participated in this debate on the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City, nor indeed in the debate on the amendment since it was resumed a week ago.
This is not because we are not interested in this debate. On the contrary, we are very much interested in the debate and have definite views on the subamendment and indeed on the whole flag issue. The reason for our restraint, Mr. Speaker, is our view that an unduly prolonged debate on this subamendment, or on any other subamendment, on the amendment itself or on the main motion, would be extremely damaging to parliament and therefore to Canada itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Once the main issues have been made clear, continuation of debate on such an emotional subject can only serve to cause bitterness and, what is perhaps equally bad, boredom and irritation about the whole subject. I have found Canadians with a variety of opinions as to the solution of this flag question; but I have found an almost unanimous view that prolonged and repetitious debate is unnecessary and does no credit to Canada or to parliament. I do not deny the right of individual members to put their convictions on this subject on the record if they think they ought to do so, but I appeal to all hon. members, in the interests of parliament and of Canada as a whole, to do so with brevity and restraint.
It is my belief that parliament should not be in almost continuous session. One of our jobs, of course, is to debate in this house; but we have another important job, and that is to get back to our constituencies and discuss with them face to face the issues of today

Canadian Flag
and correct some of the false impressions about parliament and other public issues which are only too prevalent. As far as I am concerned, I also believe that parliament needs a reasonable recess for thought and recuperation.
As a relative newcomer to parliament I would hesitate to put forward this view were it not for the statements of a great parliamentarian whose authority, I am quite sure, will not be denied by any member here, least of all by members of the official opposition. I wish to read something said by Mr. Winston Churchill in 1931:
II you wish to say what is wrong with parliament... it is that it sits far too long in the year. I would lay down that except in times of war or great national emergency parliament should not sit more than five months, with the ordinary short intervals, say, occupying six months of the year. That ought to be the maximum.
Then again in 1944 he made a similar statement to which I call the attention of members of this house:
Do not. ..ever suppose that you can strengthen parliament by wearying it, and by keeping it in almost continuous session. If you want to reduce the power of parliament, let it sit every day in the year, one fifth part filled, and then you will find it will be the laughingstock of the nation, instead of being, as it continues to be, in spite of all the strains of modern life, the citadel as well as the cradle of parliamentary institutions throughout the world-
I should like to read another quotation from this book, which is called "Our Parliament". It is about the British parliament, and the author is Strathearn Gordon. He discusses the length of sessions and says this:
Why don't M.P.s work for more than about eight months in the year? The answer is that they do- but not at Westminster.
The same is true of Ottawa:
Most ministers undoubtedly look forward to the "holidays", when they are free from parliamentary cares, as the periods when they can put their best work into their departments.
I call this to the attention of hon. members:
But for ordinary members, too, reasonably long adjournments are a practical necessity. When a man has for many weeks been living a sort of double life, spending late nights at Westminster, speaking in his constituency at the week ends, working in the train in between, with his private affairs neglected and his nerves in shreds, it is surely right to allow him time to recuperate and think. Three hundred and seventy years ago the Lord Keeper was expressing the idea in almost lyrical Elizabethan style:
"The sessions" (he said) "cannot be long; by reason of the springtime, 'tis fit that gentlemen should repair to their countries; the justices of assize also to go to their circuits.
"So the good hours"...
[Mr. Brewin.j
I commend these words to the house; they were spoken by the Lord Keeper 370 years
ago:
"So the good hours should not be lost in idle speeches, but the little time we have should be bestowed wholly on such businesses as are needful to be considered of".
I think we should bestow our time reasonably on the sort of business that ought to be considered. There is another reason why this flag debate should not be unnecessarily prolonged and should be terminated at a reasonable time. Important as this issue of the flag is-and no one denies its importance-it is even more important that we should clear the decks of this contentious issue so we can get on with the other tremendously important business that lies before this house.
Today we mentioned the pension plan. There are many other items of legislation that ought to be dealt with. If we prolong this debate now, or put it off until some other time and resume it again, the decks will not be cleared for us to deal with that which is needful to be dealt with.
The subamendment before the house proposes a complicated plebiscite on the flag issue. I believe such a plebiscite would be divisive; I think it would be an evasion of our responsibilities as elected members of parliament. I think it would be productive of strife, bitterness and perhaps even boredom throughout the nation. I believe that we in this house were elected to take the burden of decisions in the interests of Canada as a whole. I think that if we could take a referendum, as was suggested in this house yesterday, to determine whether we should have a referendum on the flag issue, the Canadian people would tell us in no uncertain terms to do the job we were elected to do and to do it soon.
After all, Mr. Speaker, what would the referendum proposed by the subamendment solve? I suspect it would solve nothing at all. It would still leave parliament to act. Supposing, as I suggested frivolously-although it would not be funny if it in fact happened- we had a plebiscite based on the subamendment and found that 30 per cent of the people were in favour of the red ensign, 10 per cent were for the red ensign plus embellishments, 30 per cent were for a single maple leaf flag and, if I get my arithmetic right, another 30 per cent supported the three maple leaves emblem produced by the government as put before us in the main resolution. Supposing we were faced with that situation. Would the referendum have solved

anything, or would we have to renew this interminable debate all over again?


Mr. Willoughby:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he believe that a preferential ballot would produce a vote such as suggested by the hon. member?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Well, I rather rule out the preferential ballot in my mind because the hon. member for Oxford, who sits on the front benches of the same party as my hon. friend and who was asked that question, said he did not think a preferential ballot was workable, and I rather accept that view. The preferential ballot would contain so many complications and difficulties that I doubt it would solve the problem.


Mr. Coates:: There are far too many complications in the Pearson flag.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I think the government flag too is a little too complicated. I would prefer to see a single maple leaf.
There is another reason I suggest the subamendment should be dealt with expeditiously and rejected. It is that there is a solution available which all Canadians, or nearly all Canadians, would accept, I believe with a sigh of relief, and which would represent a non-partisan approach to the problem. This solution would be, in our view-and in this I speak for my party-to amend resolution 44A to substitute a single maple leaf design, and to amend resolution 44B to accept the Canadian red ensign as the symbol of Canadian membership in the commonwealth. The first proposal would satisfy the vast majority of the Canadian people, particularly the younger generation, who seek a distinctive Canadian flag.


Mr. Churchill:: How do you know?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Well, I know only from the letters I have received from young people and from those I speak to, and I can assure you there are a great many of them. But 1 could be wrong. What I want to say to the house is that in our view a single maple leaf design is the simplest, the strongest and the most distinctive design. Above all, if it were adopted it could not be considered as a one party approach to the problem. I know there are people in all parties, including the official opposition, who would be quite willing to accept this single maple leaf design and get rid of the stigma, if it is a stigma, of its being produced by one political party. That is not the sort of flag which perhaps we should have.
Canadian Flag
The reasons I give for accepting the Canadian red ensign as the symbol of the commonwealth in place of the union jack are these. We all respect the union jack, but it is the national flag of Great Britain. The modern commonwealth is much more than Great Britain. The Queen is the Queen of Canada as well as the Queen of Great Britain. The red ensign-and in this I may get some mild degree of support from the official opposition-as the letters received by many hon. members including myself indicate, has achieved a measure of recognition and loyalty in the hearts of many Canadians. But the solution which we propose-the adoption by this house of a single maple leaf flag as a distinctive flag for Canada, and the adoption of the Canadian red ensign as the symbol of the commonwealth-would in my judgment achieve a greater degree of acceptance than any other solution and it could be supported, as we have found out, by members of all parties in this house.
I believe the overriding consideration which should affect us all is not the views of our constituents alone, although naturally we take them into account. I believe that what should concern us most is that which will achieve the greatest measure of Canadian unity, and best serve the welfare of Canada as a whole. That is the matter which should inspire us. Therefore I urge that all of us in this house move with all reasonable dispatch, without cutting off the right of anyone who wishes to speak, but speaking with brevity and restraint, to such a solution, which I believe would find favour throughout Canada.


Mr. Challerlon:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member not agree that any flag, be it the single maple leaf or some other, in order to be free from any partisan political connotation should have been recommended by a non-partisan committee with a fair degree of unanimity?


Francis Andrew Brewin: If we could start all over again I must say that I think a non-partisan committee would be a good way to start. But I do not think we can remake history. We are now well on our way into a protracted debate in this house of a matter which has been fully discussed all over the country, and I think we should deal with the propositions now before us and deal with them soon.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate all those who have taken part in this debate and who have participated in helping to define the limits within which the various political parties in this

Canadian Flag
house are dedicated to national unity. Indeed, sir, there are those who by their silence have revealed a wholesome awareness that democracy still tugs at the hearts of Canadians. It is a reminder to all of us that Canadians have a depth of feeling for and appreciation of national purpose, so much discounted by our press and by many of our fair weather politicians. I would be surprised that anyone should dare suggest that this was a matter to be disposed of in haste lest we all repent it later. I shall have something further to say later in my speech regarding the remarks made by the hon. member for Greenwood.
The forging of national unity and national purpose is no mean task requiring anybody to placidly admit or yield or concede without question the traditions of our heritage. The resolution before us authorizing a distinctive flag for Canada, with the amendment and subamendment, should have brought us to one of those happy, joyous, inspiring moments of our history. It should be a moment of mutual confidence, appreciation, trust and respect.
I say to you, sir, what a pity that is not the case today. I think of the Prime Minister, a man of reputation, a Nobel peace prize winner. I think of his zealous claims as to his devotion to diplomacy. I think of this minority government and the opportunity allowed him to share with all Canadians the choice and popularity of a national emblem. I remember the boasts made by his colleagues in his party during the election campaign that this was a man who cared about his country and its people. I think of those first few brave words of his in regard to this matter, that there would be a free vote in parliament.
Thinking of these things, sir, I also think of his threat of a general election should his party fall on this issue. I am reminded of those other careless acts committed by this government. This ill-fated parliament, born of minorities and intrigues, is witnessing another of those acts of carelessness which so vividly portray the petulance of the present Prime Minister.
We might well have overlooked that in itself, in the normal course of events had parliament been given an opportunity to fulfil the function for which it was created, the orderly dispatch of the business of this country. This measure before us was not a part of the planned program of this government for this session. Suddenly several weeks ago
[Mr. Nasserden.l
it was thrust upon us as a challenge to a general election. This party in the official opposition has no confidence in the present Prime Minister or his government, but we did not challenge the government to a general election. That challenge came from the lips of the Prime Minister. My leader, Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, and all of us on this side of the house deplore this interruption of the business of the parliament of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: By the same token we on this side of the house cannot neglect our duties even in the face of the blatant threat of the Prime Minister. We have said before, and I wish to say again today, that in comparison with the urgent and vital problems facing Canadians, this appears to be a most trivial manoeuvre undertaken by the Prime Minister. There are compelling reasons, sir, to believe that this manoeuvre is the most provocative in all Canadian history. Several months ago I indicated in this house that it was apparent that this is the most careless prime minister in Canadian history. Events since then have confirmed and strengthened that belief. Indeed, a few days ago I was not surprised to hear the hon. member for Leeds credited with drawing attention to the fact that this was also a stubborn prime minister.
I ask you, sir, what has that carelessness on the part of this Prime Minister cost in terms of national unity? That question can be measured in part by the increasing cost of living borne by every household and by the multiplying burdens of those in distressed circumstances wherever they reside in Canada. That, sir, is only a small part of the cost, measured in frustration, that has been occasioned parliament, which has labelled this as one of the most unproductive parliaments in Canadian history, and which throughout its course has revealed the chief magistrate of this house as most irresponsible in the performance of his duties. The attitude taken at the time of the first Gordon budget and maintained here in the aftermath of that catastrophic event, paved the way for the present impasse.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: Those weak, misguided and indeterminate groups, the third, fourth and fifth opposition parties, have encouraged that carelessness in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I certainly do not like to interrupt the hon. member's interesting speech, but if he could restrict himself to the subamendment it would be very much appreciated.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to speak on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour listened to a speech by the hon. member for Greenwood who time after time departed from the subamendment. Surely the same rule should have applied to him. I say that with great deference.


An hon. Member:: What about the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday afternoon, when I was not in the house, made a gratuitous attack on me, but when I came in he said no more.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that hon. members will appreciate the difficulty of defining relevancy. I was a little upset at the course that the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood were taking, but he seemed to tie them in at the end. I have been listening very carefully to the hon. member for Ros-thern, and I hope he is going to do the same thing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the point of order. I should like to draw your attention to the fact that last night the member for Quebec-Montmorency dealt with sales tax, nuclear arms and a scout jamboree held in Greece. Surely if hon. members are to be called to order in this house the rules should apply equally to all hon. members, and not just to a special selected group.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Let me make it clear. I have not called the hon. member to order. I just suggested that if he could confine himself to the subamendment he would be very helpful indeed.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It may be difficult to define relevancy in respect of the speech by the hon. member for Rosthern, but I think if we look closely we can find one rule which you may be able to enforce, and that is the rule in respect of a member reading his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is apparent that the hon. member is reading his speech word for word, as has been done by so many other members in the course of this debate.
Canadian Flag


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the same point of order. I had no intention of doing so, but because of the interjection just made by the hon. member for Kootenay East, who has the gall to bring to your attention the fact that hon. members are reading their speeches, I must say that he himself cannot even deliver a speech in this house without reading it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I have no argument with what the hon. member may say in respect of whether my speeches are good or bad, but I can say that I have been in the house since 1949 and have not read one speech in all that time.


An hon. Member:: That is far too long.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Perhaps I have not delivered a good speech, but neither have I read one.


Mr. Speaker:: In an attempt to settle the issue may I say that in my opinion the hon. member for Rosthern is merely referring to his valuable notes.


Edward Nasserden: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate your assistance, because I intend to tie together the ends I have left so far and some others I wish to refer to, bringing my argument to bear on the very matter before the house at the present time. I must say that I have yet to hear the hon. member for Kootenay East make a speech in this house. I dare him to make a speech in this house on this particular issue.
When I was interrupted to receive your valued advice, Mr. Speaker, I was about to indicate how the third, fourth and fifth opposition groups in the House of Commons have individually and severally contributed to that sense of security within which the Prime Minister has sought to satisfy his search for a place in Canadian history. Each of these groups in turn has risen to save the face of the Prime Minister and his minority government. I think it should be noted, and I direct these remarks through you, sir, to the hon. member for Greenwood, that it was the N.D.P. members who were so zealous in this regard at the time of the vote on the first budget, when the first revealing indication of the ineptitude of this government was given. They sat in their places and refrained from expressing an opinion, the only opinion that could have affected the course the Prime Minister might have taken at that particular time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member addressed a question

Canadian Flag
to me which I would be very glad to answer, but it seems to me to be totally irrelevant. Therefore I think I will not answer it now.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of phony points of order, but that is not even a phony one. Thus it is that the time of parliament has been frittered away by cabinet ministers who are not required to do their homework. Budgetary items and legislative items have been presented prematurely.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edward Nasserden: Valuable time has been consumed and the study of government proposals has been a fruitless wasteland.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume these are rather rambling introductory remarks to the subamendment. Would the hon. member please get to the subamendment as soon as he can? In saying that I am simply trying to enforce the order of the house.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, that is my desire, and I want to point out that this matter raises the whole question of national unity in this country and the strains and stresses that are in effect in various sectors of this nation today. Surely at this time when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has placed so much emphasis on this important matter we are not to be debarred from bringing in the background of what has taken place that has brought parliament to the impasse in which it finds itself today. Everyone in this country knows that the real and tangible problems of Canadians have been left almost untouched. In no province has this carelessness been felt more acutely than in the fair province of Quebec. Farm conditions in that province have deteriorated-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: -below those which prevailed when this government came to office. Unemployment has become a spectre-[DOT]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


Edward Nasserden: -in large areas of that province-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I certainly do not want to interrupt the speech which the hon. member is making. It may well be that in certain phases of this debate the remarks he is now making might well be in order, but at this particular phase I think it is necessary for him to adhere fairly
[Mr. Brewin.l
closely to the terms of the subamendment, and I would ask him to do so.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that if we are to deal with the subamendment we have to deal with the factors that are present in this nation today before we can decide on what should be presented to the Canadian people in a referendum or plebiscite for them to make a decision. I was about to say that as a result of what has taken place unemployment had become a spectre in a large part of the province of Quebec, when the rest of the nation is booming. We have heard an arrogant discounting of the seriousness of the situation by cabinet ministers across the way. All of these things have contributed to that feeling of neglect that is so evident and so widespread in the province of Quebec at the present time.
There is another disservice that has been committed against the province of Quebec, a disservice that has been nurtured by the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the cabinet as they have gone about the country emphasizing the divisions, emphasizing the suspicions, emphasizing the prejudices, all of which has resulted in a further isolation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. We in this party, the official opposition, deplore that measure of encouragement that has been given the advocates of separation by these thoughtless, immature manoeuvres shared by almost every member of the cabinet opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: Into that divisive atmosphere this careless Prime Minister has thrust this resolution, contemptuously seeking to drive the wedge of division even to the point of an election if necessary, all that coming from a Nobel peace prize winner, all that coming from a diplomat, all that coming from a man who was said to care for his country and his people. I say to you, sir, that this is one of the most pitiful, one of the most shameful manoeuvres ever undertaken by a Canadian prime minister. It is also the single most irresponsible action in Canadian history ever given priority over urgent domestic issues.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Edward Nasserden: It is held out to Quebec as a shelter against the outrage of promises unfulfilled by successive Liberal administrations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member for Kootenay East on a point of order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Before you came to the chair, sir, I drew to the attention of Mr. Speaker that the hon. member was reading every word of his diabolical speech. I think there should be a ruling on this point at this time. I would ask that the Sergeant-at-Arms go and stand beside the hon. member to determine whether or not the hon. member is reading his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Ricard:: I think you are irresponsible.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You had better give the fascist salute.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


Edward Nasserden: This measure is held out as a gesture to Quebec-


Guy Favreau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Edward Nasserden: -as a shelter against the outrage of unfulfilled Liberal promises.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The Minister of Justice on a point of order.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it seems quite clear that the way into which the hon. member who has the floor is engaging at the moment has nothing whatsoever to do with the subamendment. The discussion on the subamendment must, as has been ruled, assume that the amendment would carry, and what the hon. member is doing at the moment is denying the fact that the question of the flag ought to be dealt with at all. Personally I must add quite frankly that the rule to the effect that it is not appropriate to read speeches has never appealed to me. That is my personal opinion. I think it is a good thing at certain times for members to be allowed to prepare written statements so they may state carefully what they wish to tell the house. However, here is one example of the fact that the rule is appropriate sometimes because the hon. member, not being able to depart from his text, cannot abide by the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from the Minister of Justice but I noticed yesterday that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was directing that famous tirade against us the Minister of Justice pounded his desk, even though much of what
Canadian Flag
was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was totally irrelevant. I also noticed that the same thing applied when the hon. member for Greenwood was speaking this afternoon. The minister was pounding his desk at a time of total irrelevancy. I say that what is fair for one should be fair for the other. The Minister of Trade and Commerce certainly was reading his speech most of the time, but I am not worried about that. I am talking about irrelevancy.


Guy Favreau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness the hon. gentleman will remember that I said personally I did not disagree with the reading of speeches, and approved of it so that members could more carefully prepare their notes. However, I also said that in some cases the fact of being glued to a text and not being able to depart from it may prevent a member from abiding by the ruling of the Chair.


Robert Carman Coates: Is that why you did not object to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Members of the house are all aware that the reading of speeches is not conducive to the best form of debate, but there are times when a member has to refer to notes that he has in his possession. I am somewhat more concerned at the moment with the content of the hon. member's speech than I am with the extensive notes to which he appears to be referring. I know the hon. gentleman will agree with the Chair when I say to him it is at times very difficult to draw a hard and fast line of relevancy, but in view of the subamendment and the ruling by the Chair, confirmed by the house the other day, I am sure the hon. gentleman recognizes that, having made his introductory remarks, he should now continue with remarks which are relevant to the subamendment. May I ask him again to assist me in seeing that this is done?


Mr. Skoreyko:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; on reading the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) in yesterday's Hansard I notice that, as reported on two pages, he was brought to order at least three times. A minister of the crown deviating from the subamendment, as he did yesterday, would seem to me to be a course of action which it would be all right for the rest of the members of the house to take. Since the minister was not ruled against yesterday, and since the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) was not ruled against today, I cannot honestly understand how Your Honour could

Canadian Flag
ask the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nas-serden) to restrict his speech precisely to the subamendment.


Mr. Plourde:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a difference as far as hon. members of the other parties who spoke are concerned: they were not dealing with the amendment to the amendment, but were rightly protesting against the filibuster which Conservative members are staging.
Members of the other parties were discussing the filibustering tactics of the Conservatives which is pure nonsense in the eyes of the people. In fact, that party has shown by its actions that it is the most separatist party. It is a fact that it is trying to set our two racial groups against each other.
I think representatives of the other parties in the house should try, and this is important, to calm down members of the Conservative party who are still keeping us here in the middle of August.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: With reference to the point of order raised by the hon. gentleman, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking yesterday I happened to be in the Chair, and if the hon. gentleman will look back over Hansard I think he will see I asked him to do the same thing as I am now asking the hon. member for Rosthern to do. If we are going to have any order in debate we have to abide by the rules that the house has given to the Chair, and which the Chair is now trying to encourage hon. members to follow. I would think that the hon. member for Rosthern could continue now, and I hope he will make remarks that are relevant to the subamendment.


Edward Nasserden: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). He has shown a facility during the life of this parliament to seize the rules to stifle debate and prevent the expression of opinion in this house. Always he likes to hold a gun to your head, as he did prior to the Easter recess. I do not intend to be intimidated by his repeated undermining of the purpose of the rules. The rules were not made to facilitate the government itself. The rules were made for the House of Commons and its members, and I would suggest that this minister of the crown is one of those handicaps the Prime Minister has had to

contend with in trying to get business through the House of Commons.
The Minister of Justice might well listen to the opposition. He might well open the door to his own backbenchers to take part in this debate.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Edward Nasserden: I am not surprised-


Gilbert F. Rondeau: On a point of order-


Edward Nasserden: -that the Prime Minister-


Gilbert F. Rondeau: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Will the hon. gentleman sit down please. May I ask the hon. member for Rosthern to continue his remarks on the subamendment in relation to the questions that should be contained in a plebiscite for the flag.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would ask you to refer to standing order No. 34, paragraph (2), of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker or the chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if then the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in committee, the chairman shall report him to the house.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to apply this standing order in the case of the hon. member who has the floor now..


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The Chair is well aware of the standing order to which the hon. member refers, and I am sure the hon. member would wish to leave it in the hands of the Chair as to whether or not this standing order should be applied. At the moment I am just encouraging the hon. member for Rosthern to make remarks that are relevant to the subamendment before the house at the moment.


Edward Nasserden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the interruption took place I was about to mention those new frontiers of development and achievement that Canadians in every part of the country are looking toward today. I wanted to say that the province of Quebec is no different from any other province in that respect, except perhaps in the

magnitude and complexity of the particular problems involved in the retention of continuity of things that are of greater importance in that part of Canada than in many other parts of the nation. I do not know why members on the government side want to deny me the right to say that, particularly the Minister of Justice.
In trying to come to the meat of the amendment and subamendment we should take a look at our history. I do not think there is a more romantic chapter in our history than that of French exploration and settlement in Canada. The church, of course, carried much of the early work in New France. In reading our history we cannot help but acknowledge the contribution made by both Protestant and Roman Catholic missionaries who were the first to recognize fully the importance and the significance of the discovery in North America.
At that time both France and Great Britain were enterprising nations competing for world commerce. The struggle for supremacy in North America is one of the intriguing stories of world history, and none of us need feel too much ashamed of the struggle that took place. Nor should we ever sell short the destiny that the results of that struggle gave to Canadians. That history is the story of the development of self-government. Nor should it ever be forgotten how tortuous the road might otherwise have been had it not been for the decision of the 13 colonies to establish an independent republic south of the border.
Indeed, sir, all of these events influenced and shaped the commonwealth of nations that is the great heritage that Great Britain will leave to the ages. I like to think that the union of French and British Canadians contributed something worth while to the development of the commonwealth as we know it today, despite the competition between the commerce, ambitions and achievements of both the mother countries.
The pioneers came to mark and hack out a new world. Many of them wanted to free themselves and future generations from the old controversies, the old traditions and old prejudices that had failed to fulfil their hopes in the lands of their origin. All of us sometimes regret the restrictions which are allowed for only a limited and somewhat token achievement of the destiny which should be ours. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that despite this fact, Canada is still a land
Canadian Flag
of hope and promise, and I am convinced it is also a land of hope and glory.
Many of the restrictions to which I have referred have been the product of compromise. During the past 97 years a new factor has enriched our national life. Thousands and thousands of new Canadians have chosen to dedicate their lives and their toil to the building of this nation. These people have come from many lands. These people have a varied background. They and their families today comprise more than a third of the population of Canada. These people are anxious to be recognized as Canadians, without any prefix or qualifications. National unity, for them, is a simple matter. They seek no special privilege. They seek only the guarantee of equality within this nation with the rest of the people of Canada. Those new Canadians who have settled in the old province of Quebec have been quick to respond to the atmosphere and environment of that province, as have Canadians who settled in other parts of the country where the response has been equally harmonious. These people recognize that more important than the origin of their neighbours is the spirit of their neighbours.
It is natural that an emerging and developing nation should have growing pains. This does not mean that our foundations should be discarded and forgotten. The founding influence of France and Britain cannot be washed from our history. It is a matter of fact. The battle of the plains of Abraham defined a new challenge for those who would inhabit the area comprising our country. The decision on Queenston heights held a measure of victory for all who claimed this territory as their home. As a consequence, French Canada was able to exert an influence in the developing commonwealth and in world affairs which might otherwise never have presented itself.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: The Act of Union of 1867 was an act of convenience not without some measure of tolerance and compromise-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Subamendment.


Edward Nasserden: -and it has changed, or, rather, Canada has changed in the intervening years. The importance and significance of a united nation north of the forty ninth parallel is more vital today than it was a century ago. The challenge of tolerance and compromise is still with us though the means have changed and the purpose has, to some extent, changed as well. We who are new

Canadian Flag
Canadians are impatient with those, whatever their origin, who live in the shadows of suspicion sipping the poison of prejudice and division. We deplore the treachery of those who have lived to nurture the narrow ambitions of political parties. What I have to say in this regard is not poetry. It is the chronicle of a political party which has for more than 50 years sought to isolate Quebec and French Canada and to treat French Canadians as their private preserve.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Edward Nasserden: Who has not heard the proud boast of the Liberal party, particularly during election campaigns or times of stress, that they alone were capable of representing Quebec and French Canada? I have heard it in my constituency and I say that this tactic has mutilated national unity. I would have hoped that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) would have learned something from the slogan of the Creditistes-"You have nothing to lose".


An hon. Member:: By listening to you.


Edward Nasserden: That slogan, and its temporary acceptance in the province of Quebec, indicates the extent to which the past 50 years of Liberal appeals has borne fruit, as far as the people of that province are concerned. I find it difficult to believe that ministers who have gone up and down this country during the last two years feeding the fires of isolation could be unconscious of the effect this would have on national unity in Canada. My sympathies are with the people of the province of Quebec. I see the cry of separation as a cry against the treachery of the Liberal party, rather than as a cry against other Canadians. The results of the actions taken by this government have been most divisive and most provocative, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker: Is this the kind of leadership we need in this country today.


An hon. Member:: Never.


Edward Nasserden: Is this the action of a man who cares? Is this what we expect from a Nobel peace prize winner? Is this the policy-


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Smallwood:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) has been sitting in his seat throughout this debate making interruptions and reading his paper. Last night, when the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) a veteran of two world wars, a man who carries the scars of one of
[Mr. Nasserden.)
them, was speaking, he did not have enough courtesy to keep quiet-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have sat here with some restraint, Mr. Speaker, since drawing to your attention the fact that the hon. member has been reading his diabolical diatribe word for word, and now another member has brought the matter to my attention I ask you once again to rule on the question of whether the hon. member is, or is not, reading a speech which has been prepared elsewhere. He is uttering words which he neither understands nor can he pronounce.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: On that point of order, the minister not only read his speech but he released it to the press before he read it. We should like to hear the hon. member get up and read one instead of being afraid to do so.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to read citation
144 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. As far as I am concerned, there is no question but that the hon. member is reading his speech word for word. I can see he is doing so. I can see him turning the pages as he reads. Citation 144 states:
It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech for the reason that, "if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might read speeches that were written by other people, and the time of the house be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention."
It is my contention that one person has been writing most of the speeches we have heard from the other side during this debate. His views should be entitled to a hearing only once during the course of this discussion. As I say, the hon. member is reading his speech word for word. If it were a reasonable speech I might put up with that, but it is a diabolical diatribe against the Prime Minister, and I ask the hon. member to make an oral speech of his own or to leave the chamber.


Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-Carlelon):: It is my
submission, Mr. Speaker, that the words used by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) are unparliamentary. He should be asked to withdraw the word "diabolical".


Mr. Otio:: On the point of order, I wish to deplore the attitude of some of the members on this side of the house as well as in the other corner, as shown by the constant interruption of speakers. Mr. Speaker, you are in the chair; you are paying attention.

If it is the right of anyone in this house to bring a speaker to order, it should be yours, without interruption from other members. I would respectfully ask all members to respect Mr. Speaker, who is listening, paying attention and, we trust, will bring the speaker to order if he thinks it necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Toronto takes objection to what I am doing. One only has to refer to Beauchesne again to see that it is the duty of an hon. member to rise and point out to the Chair when the rules of the house are being violated. This I am doing, and I intend to continue to do so as long as the hon. member continues to read such a diabolical speech.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, please. I think all hon. members of the house know that every member who rises in his place to speak has the right to speak without being interrupted other than by a legitimate point of order or for the purpose of asking a question. The hon. member who is now making a speech has the right to continue without being interrupted. I have also made remarks as to what the house expects of hon. members who are speaking, namely that they should not read their whole speech from a prepared text. I have advised the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasser-den) that the Chair would expect him to make a speech on his own, even though he did at times have to refer to his notes. I think the hon. member should be allowed to continue although the time allotted to him has expired. Because of the number of interruptions with which he has had to contend, I want to be fair to the hon. member and will allow him a few extra moments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to thank you for your ruling. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). He has shown himself in this house to be one backbencher across the way who does not knuckle down to the whip on that side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: I might also say that I have always made my own speeches and my own notes. While I refer to notes at the present time, I make no excuse for doing so. This is a very important matter, and on the pages of Canadian history each one of us
Canadian Flag
will be recorded-what we say and what we do not say. If the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) will consider that, he may think about what he should say on this occasion. The subamendment before us-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I believe I am completely in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
hon. member rising on a question of privilege or a point of order?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member infers that it is improper of me to draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that he is reading his speech. This is quite in order, and I still contend that the hon. member is reading his speech. I cannot prove it is not his own speech, that he did not write it, but at least I do know and can see with my own eyes that he is reading it word for word.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, the subamendment before us is an appeal for common sense. It asks the Prime Minister to consult the Canadian people as to their wishes in this regard. I ask you, sir, what request could be more reasonable than that, on a matter of such great consequence not only to us but to the generations that will follow in Canada? I ask the Prime Minister, why has he insulted parliament with his "take it or leave it" attitude, reinforced by the threat of a general election?
But there are other questions to which the handling of this matter gives pre-eminence. I ask the Prime Minister, why has he taken unto himself the choice of a national emblem design? I will deal with that design at the proper time, Mr. Speaker, if this measure is proceeded with. In the meantime I would like to put on the record my own stand made in regard to this matter on a former occasion in the House of Commons when a private member's bill was before the house. I refer to the bill brought forward by the then hon. member for St. Boniface:
I am inclined to believe that the flag of Canada should emphasize that dual personality and preserve it for future generations. This is a matter that is taking on more importance with the passage of the years. As the intermingling of the two great races, and those others included in our third dimension, are gradually and surely changing by a process of erosion and diffusion, the differences that in the beginning seemed so important are today still important because they

Canadian Flag
are giving this nation a distinctive character and personality before the world.
I referred to some of the new Canadians in these words:
Many of them fled the old lands of Europe and other continents to escape conditions and circumstances that these institutions have prevented from taking place here in Canada. To many of them the union jack will forever be a reminder of their homeland or birthplace, simply because it represented a haven here in Canada against the old established inequities which had held for them little or limited hope for the future in the land of their birth. To them a Canadian flag without some resemblance to the union jack just does not seem possible.
I went on further to say:
Whatever the design Anally approved by parliament and the Canadian people, it should be a reminder to us of our beginnings as a nation. It should reflect the part that Great Britain played in the development of our institutions. It should also reflect the personality of Canada as it has developed under the enriching influence of French culture. But more than that, it must also reflect the personality of a nation having that third dimension, that of those who chose Canadian citizenship after the destiny of Canada was decided in the articles of confederation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think this might be a good time for me to advise the hon. gentleman that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, there were a great number of interruptions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I would say to the hon. member for Rosthern that there were quite a number of interruptions, some by hon. members of the house and by the Chair, too, on occasion. I have given the hon. gentleman a fair amount of extra time. However, if the house would agree to giving him another moment or two-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Then I have to advise the hon. member that I think his time has expired, even with the allowance I have made for him.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure there are no notes on my desk from which it could be presumed that I shall be reading my speech. I am rising to take part in this debate because I feel, as many members here have expressed, this is a very, very important issue. I do not agree with those members or those people who have said this is not an important issue;

nor do I agree with those members who have accused some hon. members on the opposition side of the house of having some motive for their speeches other than that of deep concern for their constituencies and their nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Steven Otto: I, for one, choose to believe, rightly or wrongly, that everyone who has taken part in this debate has done so with sincerity, integrity and believing that he represents his constituents and speaks for them. It is probably a matter of some surprise that constituents could be divided on this issue, just as this house is, but I sincerely believe this is so.
Some have said that the proposed flag was an appeasement of Quebec. We have heard a denial from the minister that the three maple leaves design was an appeasement of the province of Quebec. Possibly some hon. gentlemen do not believe the minister, but I say now that it was not an appeasement of Quebec. I am not a minister nor likely to be one. Neither have I ever said anything in this house which I did not sincerely believe to be true; and in this case I know it to be true.
Some hon. members, including the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and others, have said that this flag will divide the country. No flag, sir, will divide a nation that is not already divided; nor will it unite a nation which prefers to live in separate solitudes.
The flag issue is not the real issue here. The subamendment is not the issue either. We are not debating here these four choices. We are not debating whether there should be a plebiscite. We are not really debating the flag. What we are really debating is our national unity* which is a matter of great importance. I think we should recognize that this is what we are really debating.
Accusing fingers have pointed to our side of the house, and it has been said that this is a matter of great excitement; that we are going to excite the people and that this is the wrong time. It is said that this is the time for reason, for calmness, for coolness, sometimes even procrastination. I for one believe in excitement if the issues involved and the theme of it is great. I believe in excitement if it helps to bring to the surface grievances which have existed for some time, and if it helps to solve them. So there is nothing wrong with excitement. As to calmness, reason-that cool, calculated sense which is desired of us-this is not going to be possible in this issue. For as I have said we are dis-

cussing our national unity. We are discussing our destiny. The real issue is our love for our country. It does not take reason to love: It takes heart and guts to love.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) made a very impassioned speech, and there is no doubt in the world that every word he uttered was a matter of great concern to him. On occasion we have to say what we have to say no matter what the cost. On occasion we have to shed a tear or a drop of blood. But we have to love our nation and the unity of our nation.
At other times we will fear for our nation and be afraid for it, and this brings me to the topic which, as I have said before, we are really discussing. We on this side have wondered how it is that so many people in Canada are staunchly entrenched behind the red ensign, a fact we did not expect, people who would otherwise have fondly and readily welcomed a new distinctive flag. It is because they are afraid, and have gathered under the ensign in fear and apprehension of one thing -the division of this nation. They fear the division and separatism about which they have heard.
Let me review for a moment some of those matters which might have given rise among Canadians in English speaking Canada to such apprehensions, which might have caused the red ensign to become the banner for English speaking reaction, as I believe it has. Let me review some of these matters, not in the light of what we see here, because we have the benefit of listening to speeches made by, for example, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) and others, which have pointed out that separatism and division is not the clamour of most of the people in Quebec. We know that the cries for separatism and for division are really the mumblings of political idiots and charlatans. But the people of Canada who rely on the newspapers and radio for their information do not know this. They think that this is something which is desired by all of the good people in the province of Quebec. That is not so; but as I say, they do not know it. Let us consider this for a moment. Do not let us consider the acts of violence, but some of the statements of the premier of Quebec regarding the role of French culture. I recall reading in a brief presented to the federal-provincial conference that he stated it is the role, in fact the duty-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is of course, extremely unpleasant for the Chair to have to rise, perhaps all too often, to interrupt
Canadian Flag
hon. members in the course of their speeches, but I do feel it is my duty to remind the hon. member of the decision taken by the house the day before yesterday to the effect that, at this stage at least, remarks should be limited to the very specific aspect of the subamendment. I would therefore entreat the hon. member to relate his speech to the subamendment.


Mr.   Olio@: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat what I said at the outset, that we are not really debating the four points of the subamendment. I am saying that what is really involved is the question of our national unity, and I am trying to prove to you why. Surely you cannot deny me the right to do this. I have been referring to some of the strange statements which have been made and which might have given rise to fear and apprehension, and this matter will not indeed be solved by the four questions contained in the subamendment. These fears and apprehensions have been caused by statements made by the premier of Quebec and his ministers.
Indeed, in this very house the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) said in a speech about education that there are two official races in Canada. What are we nonofficial Canadians to think about this? Is there some cause for concern in the rest of Canada among the six million who are supposedly non-official Canadians? I should like the house to consider the economic policies of Quebec, especially in connection with giving preference to business. I am not dealing with efficiency, but strictly provincialism. I want to review all of the things which in all fairness lead one to the conclusion that at the present time there is not a national political party in this house. I could refer, for example, to some of the strange statements made by the group on Your Honour's far left. All of this has led to apprehension and fear in Canadians. And fear for what? For national unity and for all we so vigorously seek.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we are united, that we do have a feeling of identity and unity. Otherwise we would not be objecting. No one would object. Therefore it is our duty at this time throughout the course of this whole debate, not just when discussing the four questions, to state emphatically and irrevocably that this unity shall be preserved. Then the support behind the red ensign will fall. There is no reason for it at all except fear, and it is up to this house to show this. It is not enough to hear from the treasury benches that in all probability there will be

Canadian Flag
no separatism or division because it is not economical or feasible.
I think it was a perversion of the national feeling for the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) to recommend to this house that a committee be formed to study the effects of separatism. Division and separatism are not subjects for study, even academically. In this 97th year of our life we should be able to take for granted that this country is united and will always be united, and that there is no other choice or possibility of choice. In that way, sir, there would be no need for this subamendment or a plebiscite. There would be no need for support for the red ensign, as there obviously is at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, I have said time and time again that I do not acknowledge or recognize any form of division in this land. I should like to say that unless this House of Commons proclaims that this nation is united and that the provinces shall be united for better or for worse, and will so remain. Such action would be followed by adverse reaction, until militant action will be followed by militant reaction. At that time we would have only one choice; to choose sides and wait.
Mr. Speaker, I support a new and distinctive flag, and will do so if it comes to a vote. I support the three maple leaves design because I am not afraid of division or separatism in this country. I am not afraid because I will not tolerate such division or separatism. I will not tolerate in my mind even a suggestion of division. I would not even consider a thousand reasons produced by a special committee why separatism is feasible. I will not listen to even one member of this House of Commons who declares the possibility or advisability of separatism. I am not afraid to support the new distinctive flag on the basis of that feeling.
In conclusion may I remind hon. members of what we have done during the course of this debate, by amendments and subamendments. When the resolution was first proposed the idea caught fire from coast to coast. Every Canadian, whether naturalized yesterday, or whose forefathers have lived here for 300 years, was concerned. During this debate we have, little by little and bit by bit, abused this great idea and converted it into a plaything for all the members of this house. We have degraded this great idea and converted it into a cudgel that one right hon. gentleman may use to hammer at the head of the other. We have turned this great debate into an internal palace dialogue which only we can understand. We have left the people of Canada completely on the outside and they have

now lost patience with us. They do not understand the temper of this debate. We are going to lose their respect, as they have lost respect for this house.
I plead with all hon. gentlemen to say what they have to say in loud and clear tones. By all means, all members should express their opinions, but they should not pervert this debate by moving amendments, subamendments and more subamendments. I beg you to help in concluding this debate, so that we may give the Canadian flag back to the people, to whom it belongs.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the few suggestions I will make to the house this afternoon, concerning the amendment and the amendment to the amendment moved in regard to motion 44(A) asking for a referendum, are not intended to extend unduly this debate, but rather to put forward the views of my constituents on the matter, as well as the views of my own party on the amendment and on the amendment to the amendment.
Mr Speaker, this debate on a really Canadian distinctive flag will, at least, have served to bring to the fore Conservative members whom we had never heard before, because yesterday, for instance, we saw and heard for the first time in the house this session the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns).
Mr. Speaker, this debate gives us an idea of what eternity will be like. Except for one or two, the speeches made by the Conservatives and their leader did nothing but pit one race against the other and they give us quite a true picture of what eternity will be like in hell.
Mr. Speaker, to say that I am against consulting our electors on important matters would not be true because with regard to the flag, I took the initiative of sending a letter to all the family heads in my riding, asking them what they thought. The 3,500 replies I received, in addition to the numerous conversations I had with people personally or by telephone every week end in my riding, enabled me to know the general opinion of my electors on that matter. Mr. Speaker, I feel that if the Conservative members had acted thus, they would not have to evade their responsibilities by calling for a plebiscite.
Some hon. members would like the motion to be referred to a parliamentary committee. In my opinion, that suggestion is unacceptable and is no solution, because the next time the



IS, 1964

[Stage Direction]
matter would be raised in the house, we would have to start all over again.
This debate has to be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible and the problem must be solved without delay. Let us put an end to this discussion and carry on with the nation's business. We have been elected to represent our respective ridings and our countrymen. Let us discharge the responsibilities with which we have been entrusted.
For some weeks now, the administration of the country has been bogged down by the slow progress of parliament's business which is due to the systematic filibustering of the Conservatives. The house is losing considerable time listening to the empty speeches of the Conservatives who call for a plebiscite to determine whether the Canadian people are in favour of the red ensign, of a modified version of the red ensign which would include the main symbols of the two founding races, a three-leaved flag or a flag with only one maple leaf.
Why does the amendment to the amendment stop there?
Mr. Speaker, day after day and week after week, we have been getting and are still getting numerous suggestions about the flag design. Most models are quite interesting and would be truly acceptable. Why should they not be included in the referendum? Why limit the choice to four designs?
Some Conservative members told me that they would be ready to accept a flag showing the union jack, the maple leaf and the fleur-de-lis. Someone told me, one day, that a flag should not be a collection of "imperial botanical specimens" including the maple, the thistle, the rose and the lily.
Mr. Speaker, a referendum on that matter would be useless and unfair to the Canadian people; it would only divide the country even more. While the Conservatives persist in stretching the debate on the flag-
Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question-


Gérard Laprise: -Canadians suffer unfairly-


Clément Vincent: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gérard Laprise: Yes.


Clément Vincent: The hon. member for Chapleau said that Conservative members are bent on having this debate go on for ever. Could he tell us how many members of the Rallie-ment Creditiste have spoken in this debate so far. What percentage of the total number?
Canadian Flag
Could he tell us also whether that percentage is larger or smaller than the percentage of Conservative members who spoke on this matter?
Second question. How much time did the house spend some time ago to settle the internal problem of the Social Credit which was by far less important than the national flag issue?


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first question asked by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska, I may say that if he had intelligently followed the discussion, he would know that I am the first member of the Rallie-ment Creditiste to take the floor on the matter of a referendum, on the amendment and on the subamendment.
One thing that I find strange and quite ridiculous, is that the leader of the Conservative party moved himself an amendment to the main motion 44(A) and not being satisfied-he probably made an error and recognized it-his party moved an amendment to that amendment. That is the most ridiculous and most stupid thing I have seen in this house.
As far as the second question asked by the hon. member is concerned, I shall reply this: not only in the interest of the house, but also in the interest of the whole country, it was much more important, for the future of the nation, to ascertain where the Ralliement Creditiste should sit in this House of Commons than to discuss the flag issue as it is being discussed now.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are going through an economic crisis comparable to that of the thirties, before the last world war. We are living through a similar crisis: the farmers and the workers, especially those in eastern Canada, are made to suffer unfairly from that situation. And the Conservatives persist in preventing measures which could remedy that situation from being presented to the house.
Unemployment is undeserved-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I listened with much interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Chapleau, but it seems to me that by referring to this debate, to the number of speakers who participated and to points of that nature, he strayed away from the subject matter under consideration, that is the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, and I would ask him to come back to the subject matter before the house.

Canadian Flag


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In order to be-


An hon. Member:: -'[DOT]to be what?


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because the hon. member for Chapleau referred to certain things which I shall not mention, except his statement to the effect that yesterday the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa was taking part for the first time in a debate this session. In that connection, I should like to refer him to page 107 of the index of Hansard, French edition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will admit that he is certainly not rising on a question of privilege. If he feels that certain remarks of the hon. member for Chapleau are incorrect, he will have the opportunity to take part in the debate and to reply himself.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not in the house earlier. I am sure that if the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa had been in his seat a few minutes ago-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Could the hon. member resume his seat? I appreciate the point the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska is trying to make but if later the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa wants to make a correction to the remarks made by the hon. member who now has the floor, he will have an opportunity to do so. Even if he has already spoken, he will be able to take part in the debate a second time to make the correction he wants to make.


Gérard Laprise: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your remarks and your advice on that matter but you will admit just the same that I was led afield by the remarks made by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. Here is what I want to point out about his question of privilege. About the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa-and I checked the index of the debates of the House of Commons-I did not find his name anywhere.
Now, to revert to the subject of the subamendment, I would like to say in conclusion -not because I was intimidated by the remarks and the interjections which were made, but because I did not intend to speak at length-that Canadians-I received many letters and comments in answer to the personal inquiries I made in my riding-or most of them do not insist so much on a particular

flag design, but rather on a distinctive flag, which will represent all sections of Canada.
What Canadians ask especially is not so much a red flag, a blue flag or a white flag including all kinds of flowers or symbols one can think of, but rather a small green flag with figures on it, which would enable them to buy the things they need to give their families a decent living.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that instead of continuing this debate indefinitely, we should adopt the distinctive Canadian flag, settle this matter once and for all and then revert to the business of the house in order to introduce pieces of legislation likely to solve the problems facing the Canadian nation today.


Mr. Enns:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am told that the previous speaker said that my speech yesterday was my first intervention in debate on the floor of the house. I would merely refer the hon. member to the index of Hansard where he will see that there are some 14 or 15 entries under my name. In fact to be exact there are 22.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, it was most refreshing to hear the speech of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) today and it makes what I have to say a good deal easier. I should like to ask that member, however, to concentrate his thoughts on what is the real reason for the division in Canada today. What has brought about the trouble of the moment? There is no question in my mind that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is the prime mover behind it all. What I have to say today makes me a little annoyed, because in an offhand remark earlier today which the Prime Minister should never have made he used the word "filibuster".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


David Vaughan Pugh: It is all right for you over there to say "shame" but I am the one who is saying "shame" and I intend to make my speech. I simply want to refer the Prime Minister to his original remarks in this debate when he emphasized the fact that he wished every member to make his contribution. To my mind it is totally unreasonable for him in an offhand way to try to deny us our rights as representatives of our constituents and to use scare tactics by referring to a filibuster. I wanted to make those comments before proceeding with my main remarks.

My purpose in speaking today is twofold. First, I believe quite sincerely that the Prime Minister has put the Liberal party in a rather poor position. My second point is that in my own humble way I would like to offer a few suggestions and if possible give him a little help, because if he does take my advice, ultimately he will be helping Canadians.
At this stage in the debate we are on the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) which without reading it into the record, says that in any plebiscite there will be contained questions on four flags, the red ensign, a modification of it, the government's proposed flag or a modified form of the government's proposed flag.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the N.D.P. proposal, the last one.


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes, the N.D.P. proposal. The government has got itself into a rather impossible position brought about by a so-called mandate. Speaking for my own constituency, I know that no such mandate was sought. The first we heard of it was a rather long and extraordinary series of questions put to the Prime Minister with respect to a new flag. In an election these things are known to the people and eventually they trickled down to British Columbia, where the candidates were asked questions about the flag issue.
I do not know what the Liberal members now in the house said they would do, but I just wonder how the Liberal party can claim in any way shape or form that it actually got a mandate from the people on the flag issue. Prior to the election the Liberal party published advertisements in the newspapers in British Columbia outlining the policy it would follow if returned to office. I shall not make reference to all the things they said they would do, and later on said they would do in 60 days, but have not done. I am looking at this published manifesto of the Liberal party and no reference was made in British Columbia to a new flag. What I have in my hand is a full page advertisement from the Victoria Colonist of March 31, and nothing about the ensign was mentioned in it.
However as I have said the news trickled down into British Columbia, and at the election meetings which were attended by the four candidates-Liberal, New Democratic party, Conservative and Socred-we were asked, and I remember it so well, "If a new flag is proposed, would you do away with the red ensign?" The Liberal candidate replied, "You 20220-445
Canadian Flag
will throw away the red ensign over my dead body."


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That fellow isn't here.


David Vaughan Pugh: He isn't here now, but he was a good Liberal. You may make your speech in your own time. Often enough you read your little book and point out "We shouldn't really interrupt the person who has got the floor and is speaking." My Liberal opponent spoke a lot more sensibly than some members opposite, and said they would only do away with the red ensign over his dead body.


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


David Vaughan Pugh: No; afterwards if you like. The government has got itself into a ridiculous position with respect to the red ensign, a position that is untenable.
The second point I wish to make is in reference to the feelings of people in my own constituency. I have received many letters, and a preponderance of them were in favour of the red ensign. In fairness I say I have received some in favour of the government proposal, others who would like a modification of the government proposal and others still who say, "Let us look for another flag altogether." The opinions expressed in the letters were backed up by those I received as I went through my riding.
With regard to polls, I would like to quote from the Penticton Herald which conducted a local poll as a direct result of the clamour that was going on over the flag issue. This is the issue of the Herald for June 10 last and the heading is, "For ensign 89 per cent."
Almost 90 per cent of all those Herald readers who voted in the flag poll which ended last Saturday backed the red ensign, and this surely is significant. Many red ensign backers even went to the limit in their vehemence by defacing the ballot coupon provided for readers supporting Pearson's maple leaf flag. One reader scrawled across the maple leaf side-"No, no, a thousand times no, I'd rather die than say yes." But most ensigners simply cast their ballot without emotional embellishment.
There is a lot more in this report which is not very favourable to the Liberal party, dealing with the manner in which the flag issue was introduced, but I shall not read that.
We have also had independent Canadian polls, and when I heard the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) say the vast majority of people favour the new flag I thought he might have dropped dead in his tracks. If he knew anything about polls he would know

Canadian Flag
that in eight out of nine provinces there is a preference for the red ensign.
I next wish to deal with the so-called free vote. These are points on which the government has got itself so far out on a limb that it must do something, and I will have suggestions to make later which I think will be helpful. When you consider a free vote it looks nice. The Prime Minister is a great man for making nice statements right off the bat. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) asked him a question on May 12 as reported at page 3164 of Hansard. He asked: What about a free vote; are you going to give us one? Those are not the hon. member's exact words but that is the substance of the question. And the Prime Minister replied-[DOT] and these are his exact words:
When the time comes to submit the decision of the government in this matter to the House of Commons I would hope every member of the house would vote as his conscience dictates and that there would be no question of confidence or non-confidence in a party sense.
That is fine. Everyone would say: the Prime Minister is a good boy. It will be a free vote and no party whips will be in evidence. The right hon. gentleman changed that pretty quickly. I think someone else started to talk to him. Anyway, a week later, on May 19, the Prime Minister said the government would stand or fall on the flag question. Well, I sure hope they fall flat on their faces, because, boy, do they deserve it! They have done a most divisive thing. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) was talking over there, and I liked some of the things he said, but he slithered over one little thing. He did not bring out why we were having this divisive thing at the present time. He said Canada is great, we are all here; there is no division; we should all pull together. I agree with him 100 per cent. But he missed one point. The Prime Minister has brought this question before the House of Commons and in all petulancy he says: A free vote? Nothing doing, boys, you are going to sit here until this thing is voted upon. Furthermore, you are going to miss your holidays. Mr. Speaker, I enjoy holidays as much as anyone else though I do not regard time spent in my constituency as a holiday, but rather as a chance to get to know the views of the people in my riding. That is one of the sensible things the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said this afternoon. I think we would all like to get home, not as I said to have a holiday, but to keep in touch with our constituents.

The hon. member also said a rather silly thing. He said we should be getting on with the other business of this house. I am sorry. We have finished the business which was proposed by the Prime Minister and by the leader of the house over there. We have finished every last scrap with the exception of this flag question. I remind hon. members that we have finished the other business which was before us, and now we should sit until we have finished this, regardless of how long it takes and regardless of loose statements such as the one made by the Prime Minister today regarding a filibuster.
I mentioned the divisive effects of this issue. Many people have spoken on this subject. It is a matter of opinion, depending on what one stands for, how it is treated in this house. There are two sides to every question, but apparently, there are five sides here. 1 feel strongly enough on this subject to be willing to sit here all through the summer and through the fall if necessary. I couldn't care less, because I feel I am right and that I am speaking for my constituents and for a great many more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Vaughan Pugh: Let us not divide Canada. Last night I was feeling a little blue because I could not get on the list, there were so many extra speakers. I went upstairs and just before six o'clock I was having a talk with a friend. I asked the question: Who do you think is winning in this flag debate? And he gave me a very sensible answer. He said in answer to my question: Do you think anyone is winning? From that point on we began to discuss the effect of this flag debate on Canada. I rather liked his remarks. They were good. Let us not worry about winning in the House of Commons; let us start worrying about what is happening in our various constituencies throughout Canada.
Who would have thought when we got into this flag debate we would have seen such a variety of feeling? May I quote from an article entitled "Another Slant on Flag Issue" written by the Rev. A. V. Bentum, pastor emeritus of St. Andrew's presbyterian church, Penticton. He is not a man of my faith, but he is a man I respect, and I quote from this article because of its acute and reasoned assessment of certain qualities to which we as Canadians in many instances pay only lip-service. The article is a little long but I think it is necessary for me to read it at this time.
Few would have suspected, when Mr. Pearson in his election speeches promised to do something in the matter ol a distinctive flag lor Canada.

that it would have provoked such a variety of feelings when implemented. One cannot help feeling, nevertheless, that it is good to have these feelings brought out where we can look at them.
A large number of Canadians may feel that the matter is a "storm in a teacup". Some have said that they "couldn't care less". Such an attitude is as much to be deplored as the one which rabidly and unreasoningly takes sides. The flag is a symbol of the feeling which binds us together as a people.
No matter how much we may desire to expand nationalism into the wider internationalism, we shall not succeed unless we can learn to feel something positive for each other in the smaller groups. In a culture which exhibits a trend to the impersonal, one becomes apprehensive of this "couldn't care less", attitude. It is, unfortunately, all too prevalent.
Again, there are some who regard the attitude of these Canadian veterans who prefer the red ensign as reactionary, obscurantist and die-hard. The feelings of this group of citizens should not be sneered at, or passed lightly over.
Ties which have bound men together, especially in grim situations and circumstances, are not easily broken or cast aside. Those who have never lived outside the security of their own land cannot know the feelings which such a symbol as a flag can evoke.
We appear to be living in a day and generation when loyalty and veneration for anything, except oneself, is all too rare. Displays of positive sentiment may be considered weak or outmoded. Chivalry and courtesy belong to the dead past.
yiolent and destructive feelings are more in evidence in many groups and areas of the world. There seems to be a rebellion against tradition and authority, which could be useful if constructively directed, but with it there seems to go a rejection of discipline.
That very word implies regard for others, since it comes from the same source from which we get the word 'disciple'.
There may be something intriguing about "sweeping the board clean", as it were, and starting out with an entirely new flag design. Is this attitude not too consistent with what we have been saying; the apparent desire to disown one's own history?
Some sections of our society find their ideals and leadership in their own peer groups. They do not want any part with ancestors or past history.
The end results of this are to be seen in the often-lacking idealism, and the failure to profit by past experience, which is really historical perspective.
We in Canada are not a nation without ancestors, past history or historical ties. It must surely be part of a nation's strength to foster and preserve these. It may be the lack of them which causes new nations and cultures to go to emotional excesses in trying to find causes and binding ties. Those nations which have shown strength in the past have usually been the ones which have had respect for ancestors, and venerated their own history.
One hopes that we in Canada, while adding new chapters, through new sons and daughters both natural and adopted, will not discard the heritage that is ours, in a willingness to appear modem, by being cynical about sentimental attachments to the past.
Canadian Flag
Whether the red ensign should be the flag for Canada or some other, need we obliterate all reference to the cultures which have played such a large part in the making of the nation?
A truly Canadian flag need not be less Canadian in character should it show in its composition some relationship to the flags which so many sons and daughters have loved, fought under and for which they have lived and died.
I am glad I have read that to the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I interrupt for one moment?


David Vaughan Pugh: Absolutely. I do not mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the hon. member began his remarks he indicated that they would be related to the subamendment and I am just wondering whether he is not departing now, to some extent, from that purpose.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you let me finish putting that on the record. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this government has got the country in an uproar, and I want to try and do something to help this situation. I related this to the fact that the mandate which was given out with regard to the red ensign-which is No. 1 on the plebiscite-was never a mandate in my riding; it was never a request by this government. In fact, it was directly and distinctly, on more than one occasion, denied by the Liberal candidate who ran against me in the last election. Incidentally, this flag question was raised during a previous election campaign; I believe in 1962. Like many other members in this house at that time, particularly those from British Columbia, I believe there was a denial that the red ensign would ever be taken away from Canada. Have I much time left, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might advise the hon. member that according to the record I have from the table he has until ten minutes after five o'clock.


David Vaughan Pugh: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to take the full time because I believe I have pretty well covered what I wanted to say. I will now deal with the choices which are offered by this plebiscite, and I want to talk particularly about the red ensign. The red ensign is not a new flag, as some people would have us believe.
I do not wish to read too much material into the record, but we all know that up to 1904 -when we had a Liberal government also- the red ensign fluttered over these parliament buildings. It had been flown on parliament hill from the time of confederation until 1904. It is a flag which over a long period of time

Canadian Flag
*-ever since I can remember-I have felt was my own flag, and my friends felt the same way. We used to put it up on my house on May 24, I remember so distinctly. There was never any question that it was Canada's flag. However, in 1904 somebody, on orders from the Liberal party, ran up the union jack. Questions were asked in the house, and finally the ensign, which had been hauled down, was put up again. Canadians had come to regard the red ensign as their flag.
In this connection I often think of one or two men for whom I have a fair regard. I do not mind saying that. An old fraternity brother of mine, Right Hon. Mackenzie King, had no illusions about changing this flag or, I think, about the diversity it would cause in Canada. In fact, when talking to General Crerar when he came back after the war and they drove up to the parliament buildings, he said, "General Crerar, your soldiers have decided one thing; that is, Canada's flag". He was referring to the red ensign which was flying over the parliament buildings. There is another man who many of us feel was a responsible citizen. He was a prime minister of this country, and his name is Louis St. Laurent. That right hon. gentleman said, when approached on the subject of a new flag, that he would not introduce a new flag because it would be too divisive of Canada.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the feeling that was evident throughout Canada at that time is the feeling that should be evident today. This is a divisive subject. I agree with the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), although I may differ as to the end result. The hon. member said we should take a new flag and, quite frankly, I think that was the one fault in a rather good speech. I do not think we should take a new flag at the present time.


An hon. Member:: When?


David Vaughan Pugh: An hon. member said, "When". There could come a time when this is necessary, and no one should ever close the door for ever and ever on any change whatsoever in respect of a nation. My own views on the flag are well known in my constituency. I stand for the red ensign and I have made no bones about this. I think the first letter I received in parliament was asking my views on the red ensign-this goes back to 1958- and I answered that letter just as I have answered every similar letter I have received, whether they have been for or against the red ensign. I always say I stand for the red ensign.

I said, Mr. Speaker, there were two matters that I wanted to bring out in my speech. The first was that this government has got this country into an unholy, divisive mess. Consequently I believe this is a time for a little wisdom to be shown and I wish to offer one or two suggestions. I believe that the flag issue is far too explosive to be decided now. In my opinion the whole question should be stayed pending a very thorough and more mature consideration of this question. This is a time for an appeal to common sense. A plebiscite should finally be held.
I am not in agreement that we should put everything on this plebiscite, in whatever way, shape or form; but I suggest that a parliamentary committee, or a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, be held, and that the previous findings of the earlier committee on this subject should be considered. Incidentally, they were rather fine findings. However, they should be considered by the committee, and it should take a little time on this matter. They should go into everything that has happened in this regard since then, and should pay a little attention, perhaps, to this b. and b. deal that is running around Canada-not that I think much will come out of that. In any event, the committee should consider the results that come out of this royal commission.
Having used the word "finally" in regard to a plebiscite, I would say the committee's findings and recommendations should be put in the form of a plebiscite, preferably containing as few flags as possible. This plebiscite should then be put to the people of Canada. This is my suggestion, Mr. Speaker. It has been made before, but it is one I have felt right from the beginning was a proper suggestion.
I do not think a flag should be forced on Canada. This issue is too highly political in nature and it is divisive in the extreme. In my opinion Canadians should never have been put in this position. Let us not have a "take it, or else" flag. Now is the time-and I am using the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) last evening-for a responsible course to be taken by a responsible statesman. We have in this house different points of view, different forms of approach; and believe me, Mr. Speaker, this is not a time for railroading something through. This is a time for extreme caution, not because of the flag alone but also because of the dangerously explosive situation which exists in Canada. The flag is only one mani-

festation of this explosive situation. We hope that when a flag is decided upon it will be with us forever, and this is no time for undue haste.


Mr. C. E. Millar (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate 1 make no apologies to anyone. In fact, it would appear that the time is fast approaching when those members who do not participate are the ones who are going to have to make apologies, not only in this House of Commons but in their home ridings as well.
In the riding I represent, Middlesex East, I have well over 100,000 sincere Canadian citizens. I am well aware that not all of them favour either side in this issue. I have had many letters from constituents, the large majority of them in favour of the red ensign. Many are in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag; but I have yet to receive one in favour of the Pearson pennant. How can the government of Canada deny to the people of this country the right to express their opinion, as requested by the amendment and the subamendment which have been proposed in this house? Frankly, I favour the retention of the red ensign. This is not unreasonable because I have a typical Canadian background and ancestry.


An hon. Member:: What is that?


Campbell Ewing Millar: When I say that, I am referring to Scots-Irish. I make no apology. Nor do I belittle any other ancestry in this country.


An hon. Member:: What about the Indians?


Campbell Ewing Millar: What about them? Are hon. members opposite going to give them a chance to express their views on the flag issue? I think it is true that in every constituency in Canada there is a division of thought. I do not think there is any member in this House of Commons who could stand up and say that all his constituents were in favour, one way or the other. How, then, can the government take a stand and say to the people: "This is what you will have as a flag. This is what you will accept; take it and like it"? This does not make sense. How can this minority government-and I repeat "minority government"-force their choice of a flag on the people of Canada? Is this their interpretation of democracy?
It is quite true that the government of the day would have us believe that they carry a mandate to introduce a new flag in this country. Nothing could be further from the truth. The present Prime Minister came to
Canadian Flag
the city of London during the last election campaign and spoke to a group of over 5,000 people-a Liberal estimate, Mr. Speaker. During his speech to all these sincere Canadians the fact that this government contemplated the destruction of the red ensign was never mentioned. It is very difficult, as many speakers have said, to find any reference to destroying the red ensign and replacing it with another flag. However on turning to the Globe and Mail, in a report which carries a quotation from Winnipeg some time in April, 1963 this appears:
Liberal leader Lester Pearson yesterday rejected the red ensign as Canada's official flag. He told a group of editors of ethnic newspapers that a distinctive Canadian flag should be one that could not be mistaken for the emblem of any other country.
Why did the Prime Minister not tell that to the 5,000 people he spoke to in London, Ontario, if it was part of his platform? It is one thing to promise a distinctive Canadian flag, but it is quite another to come to this parliament and say: "We have decided the flag that the Canadian people will have. This is what we have chosen for you: accept it and like it. Should this house not accept that flag we will be faced with an election".


Mitchell William Sharp: Parliament will decide, not this party.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Yes, with a free vote and a Liberal majority.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, there is no Liberal majority.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Look at your friends to the left. There is no question where they stand.


Mitchell William Sharp: They are supporting us.


Campbell Ewing Millar: I cannot help but think how interesting it will be when the next election comes along and the Liberals, the N.D.P. and the Ralliement Creditistes are all taking the platform and claiming credit for introducing the new flag. I never saw such a group of M.P.s so determined to commit political suicide as we have in the left hand corner of this house. I am wondering whether they are labouring under the illusion that the Liberal party will withdraw the Liberal candidates in their ridings.
If I may return to the Globe and Mail- and I think I am getting back to the subamendment-


Maurice John Moreau: About time.


Campbell Ewing Millar: I do like to hear these interjections from the other side because it indicates that one is getting close to the truth. And it

Canadian Flag
really hurts sometimes. If I may refer again to the Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker, it does appear that there is still one Tory who writes for that newspaper who has not yet received the hatchet treatment. I refer of course to the columnist Mr. Bruce West, who remains loyal to the red ensign and is not afraid to say so, for which I give him credit. Bruce West in his column for Thursday, August 13, sums up the whole flag issue in one sentence when he says:
I am sure that many of us who now oppose the scrapping of our present proud flag would be willing to shut up and bow to the will of the majority if a referendum indicated that a new flag were desired by this country.
Further to that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to state my own position, which is simply this. If the people of Canada indicated by a referendum, by a free vote, that they were in favour of any one particular design, I would be prepared to accept that design without even seeing it. This, I believe, is democracy. The majority should rule.


Maurice John Moreau: The blind leading the blind.


Campbell Ewing Millar: That is what you would have us believe.


Mr. Boulanger:: You are hardly supporting the red ensign.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Why doesn't the hon. member stand up and say that?


Prosper Boulanger: Yes, I will do that. I say to my hon. friend that he does not stand up so much for the red ensign when he speaks like that, saying that he will accept any flag.


Campbell Ewing Millar: What I said was that I myself prefer the red ensign; but if the majority of the people of Canada indicate that they want something else, then I will accept that.


Maurice John Moreau: A majority of the house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Let us have a look at it.


Campbell Ewing Millar: It will be the will of the majority. We have to sit and look at you, and you represent the majority.
Mr. Speaker, this is the whole question. What proof is there that the people of Canada want a new flag? What indication has there been of this fact? If the Prime Minister is as brave as he would have us believe, why does he not go to the people of Canada and give them an opportunity to express their opinion? I would love to see some of the hon. members opposite, particularly those from English speaking ridings, squirm when this flag issue is brought up at the next election.


An hon. Member:: I did not squirm.


Campbell Ewing Millar: You may squirm the next time.


Michael Starr: What other word could you use to describe it?


Campbell Ewing Millar: If the Prime Minister is convinced that the people of Canada are so anxious for a new flag, he should have no fear of providing them with an opportunity to so indicate by a vote; or is it a fact that the Prime Minister, in his manoeuvring, would like to solidify certain necessary elements of support before he takes that gamble?
It is time, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada were informed that this flag issue is not holding up the business of this country, or the business of parliament. The Prime Minister himself stood in this House of Commons this afternoon and said that he hoped the flag debate can be terminated so we can consider a well earned recess, and then return to this house and take up the pension legislation and other important business. Why does the press, as well as many other individuals, attempt to lead the people of Canada to believe that we are obstructing the business of this house and this country when it is a fact, as corroborated this afternoon by the Prime Minister, that the business of this session is now completed?
It is openly admitted inside and outside of this house that many people object to placing the union jack on any part of a distinctively Canadian flag. My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: Why were those same people so strangely silent at the time they were happy to accept the protection of the union jack in two world wars? There is no answer to that question.
The union jack and the red ensign represent the basic freedoms everyone in this country enjoys. Those flags denote the reason why many people from all over the world have chosen to come to this country and take the oath of citizenship under the red ensign. Should we be ashamed to display the red ensign as part of any flag of Canada? The answer to that question is no. Should we be ashamed to have the red ensign as part of any Canadian flag? The same answer applies to that question. Should we destroy parliament itself simply because it is patterned after the mother of parliaments at Westminster? If that reasoning is good on one side it must be good on the other side. This must also apply to our whole system of justice.

The whole purport of the amendment, as moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the subamendment, as moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More), is to give the people of Canada an opportunity to express their feelings and wishes. I think that is a democratic practice and we on this side of the house are in support of it.


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


Campbell Ewing Millar: Certainly.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Can the hon. member indicate to this house any democratic country that has adopted a flag through the procedure which has been suggested by the hon. member?


Campbell Ewing Millar: I cannot name any country that has done this, but how many countries have had a flag shoved down their throats by one Liberal party? I shall go further, how many countries have had a flag forced upon them by the Prime Minister and a man such as he who is on his feet?


Neil Alexander Matheson: Does the hon. member remember the fashion in which the interim flag that has prevailed since 1945 was selected? It was done by order in council.


Campbell Ewing Millar: I support this flag because it is a flag that I love.


Mitchell William Sharp: Are you going to impose your flag?


Campbell Ewing Millar: This flag has already been imposed, and it was a Liberal government that imposed it on the country. I am prepared to accept it. I refer of course to the red ensign.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member for Middlesex East permit a question?


Campbell Ewing Millar: Yes.


Malcolm MacInnis: My question is prompted by t.v. commercials. Does the hon. member realize that the remarks being made by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) can be likened to television, where there are more commercials than programs?


Campbell Ewing Millar: I should like to thank the hon. member for his question, but remind him that this condition is normal.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. members are enjoying themselves.


Campbell Ewing Millar: This government is the only government in the history of politics that has
Canadian Flag
29 different speakers, and every time someone on this side of the house makes a remark they object to, 27 of those speakers shout "order, order". They have not the nerve to stand up on their feet and say what they have to say, but hide behind their hands.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Campbell Ewing Millar: We love that sort of performance, and we are used to it.


Mitchell William Sharp: I had 50 members interrupting me yesterday.


Campbell Ewing Millar: You are an outstanding speaker. Mr. Speaker, I should like to state I enjoyed the speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I do not like his attitude when he attempts to convince us that the government has made a decision for us and that we should say nothing more. I do not like his suggestion that the government has made a recommendation, and the Liberal party can make no mistakes, and that we accept their recommendation and keep quiet. I refuse to follow that suggestion.
I intend to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker-


Miss Jewett:: Oh, no.


Campbell Ewing Millar: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett). I suggest she would do well to spend some time in her own riding in an attempt to discover the feeling of the Canadian people there whom she is supposed to represent.


Pauline Jewett: I just came back from there.


Campbell Ewing Millar: I hope you have, and I hope to see you here after the next election.


Pauline Jewett: I have news for you.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Mr. Speaker, in the entrance hall in front of this chamber there is a bronze statue in honour of one Lieutenant Colonel George Harold Baker, a member of parliament, who gave his life in defence of this country. As a part of this memorial there is a stone tablet upon which is carved a verse from probably the best known of all Canadian poems, which reads as follows:
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.


Maurice John Moreau: That was not the red ensign.


Campbell Ewing Millar: Just listen Moe, and you will get it.

Canadian Flag
Mr. Speaker, to many Canadians, including myself, that torch is symbolized in the Canadian red ensign. I say that this government is breaking faith with every man or woman who has ever served in armed forces of Canada.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if this resolution is forced through the House of Commons, then the government should commission the stonemasons working on the building to destroy that tablet, because under this legislation it becomes a mockery.
Thank you.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambion-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that not much new can be contributed to this debate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: -by a humble backbencher like myself. However, like the previous speaker I make no apology whatsoever for getting to my feet and taking the time of the house. It is my right and my duty as an elected representative, and I am merely acquiescing in the invitation extended to me by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of this country. I should like to pause for a second and ask: Who is there in this house to deny me the right to voice my opinion?


Some hon. Members:: No one.


Pauline Jewett: Who is?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: The Prime Minister
invited us to speak. Yet this afternoon he referred to our participation as a filibuster. Be that as it may, I say in all humility that I hold the forlorn hope that in my humble way I might suggest something that could bring, so far as the greatest number of people in Canada are concerned, a happy solution to this impasse. I should like to say that whatever flag is chosen for this great dominion of ours I will honour and revere it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Furthermore, to put hon. members' minds at ease may I say I intend to heed the counsel of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who suggested this afternoon that perhaps we should be brief.
I have examined in some detail most of the speeches that have been made in this so-called flag debate. Last Wednesday the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) led off and the purport of his remarks was to the effect that we should deport ourselves like gentlemen and members of parliament. Other hon. members have suggested that we should have a free vote. In my humble opin-

ion the fact is that at the present time this is an impossibility because the political machine has whipped the boys into line and I do not honestly think that a free vote could be held.
A further suggestion that appears in reading some of the speeches is that the government might appoint a joint committee of both houses to study the situation. It has also been evident in practically every speech that has been made that there is a heartfelt desire on the part of every member that we should do our utmost to build unity in this country. Another good suggestion was made by the hon. member for Greenwood this afternoon, and I believe he quoted Winston Churchill as his authority. He suggested that members should be allowed to go home and discuss the situation with the people.
Every speech that has been made has contained certain common denominators, first a plea to achieve unity, and second a plea to remove the flag from party politics. Another common thought that has been expressed is that we should let the people themselves decide, as they should in a democracy. This thought is contained in every speech I have read, with the notable exception of one. I was disappointed, indeed I was dismayed, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) was the only one who did not have in his remarks-at least, it was not apparent to me-any idea that the people themselves should decide. His was an unswerving, dictatorial attitude with no give and take. His was the only speech I could discover in which the speaker actually referred to appeasement of Quebec.
I discovered something else in going through these speeches and it is something I do not particularly like, something that pains me a little. I refer to the fact that in so many places references have been made to the Prime Minister and he has been described as being autocratic, petulant, domineering and arrogant because, they say, of his insistence on a vote on the flag before a recess. I do not share these sentiments. I do not believe a man could become prime minister of this country and leader of a large political party unless he was a man of some stature. However I do believe that the Prime Minister is listening to bad advice from some cocky, opinionated advisers and if he persists in continuing to listen to them I feel he must be held responsible. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, this government has no reason to be arrogant or cocky. They have no mandate to force their will on the public. They should listen

to the voice of the people. The government is in just about the same position as I am personally.


An hon. Member:: Bankrupt?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: No, Mr. Speaker, not bankrupt financially, although I must admit I am not blessed with too much of this world's goods. However, the government is in the same position as I am so far as a mandate is concerned. When I get feeling too big for my britches and start to feel quite important as a member of this house, I turn my mind back to the election in April and rediscover the fact that I was elected by the large majority of 24 votes over my closest opponent. Now, this is not the point. In the election there were 931 more votes cast against me than for me, and those people who did not vote for me are entitled to their opinion and I believe I should endeavour at least to consider their viewpoints. This, Mr. Speaker, I propose to do so long as I am able.
I intend to try and be a representative of the people of my constituency and to be considerate of all of them. I would recommend this course to the present government because it is in exactly the same position as I, so far as a mandate is concerned, only it is worse percentagewise. I must realize that out of almost 8 million people casting votes, only 3J million cast votes for the Liberal party. For these reasons I say consideration and moderation should be the approach of the Liberal party to the flag issue.
Now, Mr. Speaker, heeding the advice of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) I intend to conclude, and I have just this one last thought to leave with you. I say to the Prime Minister that this is a time for greatness. This is a time for him to stand for democracy. This is his opportunity to rebuff those phony advisers who are leading him down the garden path to oblivion. I say, Mr. Prime Minister, make your own decisions; appoint a committee or have a referendum; do something which will give the people of Canada a democratic chance to pick out their own symbols divorced from party politics.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have listened to the hon. gentleman's speech very carefully and I would like to ask a question of clarification. Was he advocating a plebiscite or a committee of this house, of members of parliament, to make a decision on the flag? I was not sure which.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: If the minister will read my speech tomorrow he will see that the door was left open for either one.
Canadian Flag


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, on entering this debate for the second time I first wish to comment on the contributions made by hon. members to date. It is my considered opinion that the calibre of the speeches delivered has been of the highest quality during this debate, in fact the highest since I took my seat in 1957. There is good reason for this high calibre. It is because hon. members who have been speaking have been speaking from their hearts, have been speaking with a feeling that is only evident when speaking about symbols that represent your country, your history and your tradition.
We have heard many complaints from newspapers in this country, through their editorial writers, that too often speeches in the House of Commons are as dull as ditch-water and thus unfortunately, too many newspapers have reached a decision to print little or nothing of what is being said in the house on this important matter. I ask, when has the point been reached that the newspapers of this country make an assessment beforehand of what their readers should see and what they should consider?
If the newspapers of this country were realistic, if they were to go out into any group in any area of this country and sit down and talk with the people, they would find that no issue is more important or more discussed at present than this specific flag issue. I have discussed this issue with many people in many areas, and as a result of my discussions I wish to pose certain questions to the Prime Minister in the hope that he might, when he has the opportunity, take his seat in the house and give answers to these questions.


Mr. Choquette:: Order paper.


Robert Carman Coates: My friend, if you consider this is the type of thing that should go on the order paper then I say, sir, you should not be allowed to sit in the House of Commons.


Auguste Choquette: I will resign then.


Robert Carman Coates: I believe the time has arrived when the Prime Minister must reconsider the position in which he has put the House of Commons on this important matter, for I am sure all members will agree that this debate has far reaching implications for the future of our nation. Many have contended that an election campaign based on this volatile issue would not be in the best interests of the nation. Accepting this as a correct premise, I ask the Prime Minister to consider what is

Canadian Flag
happening in parliament now, and if this is really a substitute for an election campaign that is of benefit to our future?
I ask him this, sir, because no matter what is said in the house, he is the Prime Minister of the country; he is the man who determines what we debate and when we debate it. He can talk about meetings of party leaders all he desires but he is still the man who runs this country, or is supposed to be running it at this time.
I ask the Prime Minister if he does not believe that the flag design which he proposes as an alternative to the Canadian red ensign is not the type of design that will offend a large number of Canadians in every province of this nation? The Prime Minister in proposing this design suggested that we should have a resolution authorizing the flying of the union jack as an alternate design. It was his hope that those who would be offended would derive some consolation from the second flag.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. gentleman where he gets the idea that this is an alternative flag?


Robert Carman Coates: I beg your pardon.


Mitchell William Sharp: Where is your authority for saying this is an alternative flag?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) will wait I think I will indicate it to him. It has to be an alternative flag. There cannot be two flags flying from every flag pole in this nation. Let us be realistic. One flag.


Mitchell William Sharp: One Canadian flag.


Robert Carman Coates: Right. I say to the hon. gentleman: Is this really an honest approach to the flag question? Can there be any assurance that any second flag which may be adopted will become a part of our Canadian nation for any length of time? The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) in his speech outlined what transpired in relation to a second flag in South Africa. Would this not also be the history of a second flag in Canada?
Now, I ask this question: Who is deriving the greatest pleasure from the action taken by the government on the flag issue? I suggest to the Prime Minister that he is providing a degree of pleasure for the separatists in the province of Quebec which they are not worthy of deriving. He has also produced a degree of extremism among many loyal Canadians throughout the nation which makes future Canadian unity a questionable subject. Does

the Prime Minister want a flag which will aggravate the feelings of large sections of the population? Do French Canadians generally consider a flag design satisfactory when it will displease large sections of the population? I do not for one moment consider they wish any such result. Indeed, except for the vociferous separatist element in the province of Quebec I find little to indicate how the sensible and realistic Canadian in that province feels about this flag issue. I ask the Prime Minister to tell me how the good citizens in the province of Quebec who desire a united and progressive nation feel about Canada's flag. Surely, there must be some method of determining how the people of that province feel with regard to its design, or with regard to a design which would have an association with our history and traditions.


Mitchell William Sharp: Would the hon. member permit a question? Has he inquired of his own members from the province of Quebec to get an answer to those questions?


Robert Carman Coates: I certainly have and I find there is a degree of responsibility indicated in their replies to me which has certainly not been evident among the members on his side representing the same province, as indicated by the interjections they make every time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I can take advantage of the interruption by the minister to inform the hon. member that he is obliged to direct his remarks to the subamendment. The hon. member is in a particular situation inasmuch as he has already participated in the debate; he spoke on June 17 last in connection with the amendment. Today, of course, he is speaking on the subamendment. It is a basic rule of this house that a member can only speak once on a question. It is in order, of course, to speak a second time on the subamendment, but surely any speech at this stage should be relevant to the new question and not to the old question on which he has already spoken.


Robert Carman Coates: Thank you. I think Your Honour will have no difficulty in finding that I will be speaking on the subamendment before the house.
I support the contention that the government has mishandled the flag issue so badly that it is not possible now to make a realistic appraisal of the subject within the confines of the House of Commons. Once it became a government measure, the flag design proposed by the Prime Minister became a government flag. It became a flag closely associated with the Liberal party. Such a flag

has little hope of acceptance among those who do not adhere to Liberal philosophy in this nation. Indeed there are many who have adhered to the Liberal philosophy who cannot associate that philosophy with the design presently proposed. For this reason it would appear to be best for the nation if a plebiscite were held, since, apparently, this is the only means of taking the flag issue out of partisan politics.
At the same time it seems to me that in reaching a conclusion as to what the new flag design should contain the government has attacked this problem in reverse order. Would it not have been more sensible to have assumed that a large proportion of the Canadian public favours the Canadian red ensign? Before producing a new flag design, they should have assumed that this support was present and, in order to develop a new design which would inspire an even greater acceptance, they should have tried to evolve a design based on the Canadian red ensign- a flag which would have embodied in it an association with our history and tradition, as well as symbols which are not now contained therein but which could be developed in a new flag without making a complete break with the past.
I would have thought the government's study of the great flag debate in South Africa if it did nothing else, would have provided it with sufficient experience and knowledge to appreciate that the people of a nation, especially a nation which is bicultural in character, would not allow the rights of either a large minority or a small majority to be trampled upon. When this occurs, as is demonstrated in Canada today, only the extremists derive pleasure from the results of the decision.
As members of this house are aware, I have been a strong advocate for the retention of the Canadian red ensign. So long as this government considers that the only alternative available to the Canadian red ensign is their own proposed flag design I shall fight their action by every means at my disposal. If these two designs are the only alternatives which must be decided upon, then I feel I am doing my duty as a Canadian in avoiding a proposal which would destroy and eliminate any association between the flag of our nation and our history and tradition. At the same time, if the government were to indicate that they were endeavouring to introduce a flag design which would be more acceptable to the great majority of Canadians in all parts of this nation, a design which 20220-4464
Canadian Flag
would also have an association with our history and tradition, then I would be the first to try to assist that government in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion.
Among all the letters I have received from every part of this nation I have found few whose authors, though they confirmed their belief that the Canadian red ensign should remain as our flag, were not also willing to concede that they would agree to alterations in that flag which would give greater recognition to the bicultural character of our nation as long as the union jack remained as a continuing symbol of the contribution we have received from our connection with the British commonwealth of nations.


Mr. Pepin:: It is called the commonwealth of nations, now.


Robert Carman Coates: It is kind of you to correct me.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You should know.


Robert Carman Coates: As far as I am concerned it is still the British commonwealth of nations.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We know that perfectly well. It is obvious.


Robert Carman Coates: Surely this house cannot continue indefinitely-


An hon. Member:: Certainly not.


Robert Carman Coates: -with a debate of this type. Surely, at some time, the government must realize that we have to reach a conclusion which will end the debate. To date, the government has been adamant that this house must accept the flag they have produced or else debate forever.


An hon. Member:: May I ask a question?


Robert Carman Coates: I am not going to answer a question right now. Surely it is not the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition or of any of the opposition party leaders, but it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister of this nation-


Mitchell William Sharp: Which he is discharging.


Robert Carman Coates: No, he is not discharging it. I cannot agree with that at all. He is not discharging his responsibility to this nation as long as he persists in trying to force this parliament to adopt a design which he realizes a large proportion of the members of the house find totally unacceptable.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Your Honour pointed out some time ago to the hon. member that the question to which he should be addressing himself was that of a referendum. I have listened to the

Canadian Flag
hon. member with considerable attention, and I fail to see how the remarks he has made to this time are relevant to the matter now before the house.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the point of order. I think it would be a good thing to invite the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) to occupy the chair for a while.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member who has the floor indicated a moment ago that this is the question to which he intended to address himself. I know he recognizes that, in view of the fact he has already spoken in the debate on the amendment, he is perhaps in a position where he should as much as possible limit his remarks to the specific question before the house. I feel that to some extent he has done that until now, but I would invite him to keep this in mind.


Robert Carman Coates: Surely, Mr. Speaker, when I am discussing two of the particular designs that are involved in the subamendment, I must be talking to the question before the house. If I am not, then I do not know when I would be. The point I was trying to make was that we cannot continue forever in this fashion, so long as the government persists with its plan to make parliament accept the design it is proposing at the present time. There are too many members in this house who say this design is totally unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: Surely, Mr. Speaker, in view of this fact, if the Prime Minister is determined to produce a flag he must move in the direction of trying to produce one that is acceptable to a majority, and a large majority. I might refer to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), that a flag is not something that should be decided upon by a bare majority of the members of the House of Commons. Surely we should have the type of support in the House of Commons, for whatever new flag is accepted, which will mean that at least two thirds of the members of this house find the design acceptable to them, which would be an indication that at least two thirds of the people of this nation found the design acceptable. At the moment there are 50 per cent of the people of this country either in favour of the design the Prime Minister has produced, or some other design, and 50 per cent of the people-or close to that percentage-are in favour of the present flag. There is no hope of ever reaching a conclusion of a debate

based on two propositions when there is not any strong support for either one.
I might refer for a moment to the speech of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). If he did anything, he made one point abundantly clear. He said he did not imagine there would be the support in the country for the Canadian red ensign that is evident today. I think when this debate started there was not this degree of support for the Canadian red ensign, or else people had not made up their minds about the flag; they had not thought about it. However, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that suddenly they became aware of the fact that there was going to be a change, and they looked at the Canadian red ensign and saw it as a flag that represented freedom and liberty. When they saw what was going on, they rushed to this flag because it had provided in the past this freedom and liberty. What better reason is there, what better example of why we should have a flag that is representative of our past history and tradition, if it is not for the fact that at times of doubt people look to it and see in it those things that are representative of the history, tradition and liberty that we so dearly love.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister to give leadership to the country in this matter; to admit that what he has produced in this resolution with regard to a flag is not something which at this time the nation is willing to accept; that it is one which does not carry the large majority that is needed in the House of Commons for the adoption of a national flag. This majority is not available to him. The Prime Minister should either withdraw his resolution and introduce another which is more acceptable, or honestly say to the Canadian people, "This is not the time, I have found, to go forward with a new flag design. The Canadian nation is not ready for a new flag. I hate to admit this, but I have honestly found this out, and in all sincerity I now withdraw the flag resolution that I introduced into the House of Commons".
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians would have more respect for our Prime Minister if he were willing to adopt this attitude, rather than the attitude of endeavouring to produce a flag and foist it on the Canadian people, aggravating thousands, if not millions of people who do not want this flag, will not accept it and will not respect it even if it is pushed through this House of Commons. That is the thing that bothers me more than anything else; I do not want to think that we in

the House of Commons are going to adopt a flag that a great many people in this nation will have no respect for, once it is hoisted on the flagpoles of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about the business of the house, particularly the estimates that will be called for Friday.
Business of the House Mr. Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the flag debate will continue tomorrow. On Friday-if we reach Friday-we will proceed with the examination of the estimates of the Department of Forestry, to be followed by the estimates of the Department of Industry, to be followed by the completion of the discussion on the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 20, 1964