1964-09-09

ANNOUNCEMENT OF BY-ELECTIONS ON NOVEMBER 9

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like to inform the house that by order in council P.C. 1964-1409 of September 9, by-elections will be held to fill the vacancies in the two federal constituencies of Waterloo South, Ontario, and Westmorland, New Brunswick, on November 9, 1964.



JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-118, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act (application to mentally retarded).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Dean Howe: The passage of the Juvenile Delinquents Act marked our recognition that a juvenile charged with an offence against our criminal laws should not, as well for the good of the community as for his own good, be exposed to the usual public and trial process of the criminal courts; and, if adjudged an offender, cannot comprehend and benefit by, and therefore should not undergo, the penal punishment of an adult offender.
Since the passage of the act, scientific technologies enable us to define the mental age of a person in terms of an equivalent chronological age. The purpose of this bill is simply to update the law in accord with these scientific advances and so apply the act to those mentally retarded persons who have a mental age within the age limits protected by the act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Are people detained by the immigration department under provisions of the Immigration Act in the Bordeaux jail photographed and fingerprinted?
2.	Are people who visit those detained under the Immigration Act at the Bordeaux jail required to sign a declaration that they would submit to search procedures and, if so, is this done at the request of the immigration department, or at the request of the officials of Bordeaux jail?
3.	Is the department giving consideration to making arrangements to detain people in Montreal in a place other than Bordeaux jail?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Yes. All inmates of the Bordeaux jail are photographed and fingerprinted and no exceptions are made on behalf of persons detained under the provisions of the Immigration Act.
2.	Yes. All visitors to inmates of Bordeaux jail are required to sign a visitor's pass which incorporates, among other things, an agreement to submit to a search if the jail authorities deem such action necessary. No exception is made on behalf of visitors to persons detained under the provisions of the Immigration Act. This is part of normal procedures at Bordeaux jail and is not done at the request of the immigration department.
3.	No. Although the facilities of Bordeaux jail are used by the department to a greater extent than any other in Montreal, use is also made of the reformatory school, Mont St. Antoine, 8147 Sherbrooke street E., the Montreal city police headquarters and the women's division of the Montreal gaol, 1730 Fullum street.


* INQUIRY INTO ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE OF CANADA
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	Does the government Intend to launch an inquiry concerning the interdependence of the various areas of Canada?
2.	If so. would this inquiry deal especially with the possible economic effects which might result from Quebec's separating from the rest of Canada?
3.	Has the government initiated a pre-inquiry into the interdependence of the various areas of Canada and, if so (a) who decided to have it held (b) under what authority is this inquiry being conducted (c) what are the names of those officials

Questions
conducting it (d) will this inquiry require spending of public funds, and (e) does the government intend to have its decision in this matter ratified by parliament?
4.	Has the Prime Minister informed the officials responsible for conducting this inquiry or preinquiry of his views on the subject of the inquiry or on the conclusions which such an inquiry will lead to?
5.	Does the government intend to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the interdependence of the various areas of Canada?
6.	Will the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism be called upon to contribute to this inquiry and will it be required to consider the work which will be undertaken by a similar commission?
7.	Does the Prime Minister intend to appear before all organizations, commissions or other bodies inquiring into the interdependence of the various areas of Canada?
8.	Did the government consult the provinces before launching its pre-inquiry into this subject and does it intend to consult them or does it intend to invite them to take part in all such inquiries?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. Yes.
2.	No. This will be a general inquiry into the economic and social forces affecting the unity of Canada.
3.	No. Ministers have consulted with officials as to the appropriate form of the inquiry.
4.	No.
5.	No. The inquiry will be conducted by an interdepartmental committee of government officials. It will be related to the federal government's work in connection with the federal-provincial tax structure committee. The intention will also be that the general findings of the inquiry should be published in a white paper.
6.	No.
7.	No.
8.	There has been no pre-inquiry. In conducting the inquiry, federal officials will seek the assistance and views of the governments of the provinces, as well as of private persons and organizations. The inquiry will be conducted on an informal basis.


COMMUNITIES NOT RECEIVING C.B.C. TELEVISION
Mr. Byrne: 1.	How many communities of 2,000 population or more are not now receiving C.B.C. television extension service or direct live C.B.C. television?
2.	What would be the approximate annual cost of providing television extension service to such communities?
3.	What is the annual cost of providing existing C.B.C. extension service?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The present television planning list contains 60 locations of 2,000 or more population

which do not receive adequate C.B.C. television service.
2.	This is estimated at approximately $3,500,000.
3.	Assuming "extension service" to mean net-work relay and rebroadcasting stations, the annual operating costs total approximately $1,600,000.


SEISMIC OIL PROSPECTING, VANCOUVER ISLAND
Mr. Groos: 1.	Does the government permit seismic operations by prospecting oil companies off the coast of the lower areas of Vancouver island, B.C., and, if so, is there any cut-off date each year?
2.	Are there any limitations to the extent or magnitude of these operations?
3.	Is there any indication that these operations may have an adverse effect upon west coast fishing?


Maurice Lamontagne: In so far as the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is concerned:
1.	Yes. The government permits seismic operations by prospecting oil companies off the coast of Vancouver island, B.C.
In so far as the Department of Fisheries is concerned:
1.	To the second part of the question, the answer is yes.
2.	Yes; as a result of experience and studies a set of conditions has been established.
3.	Experienced fisheries observers have accompanied seismic operations on the west coast during the past two years. Their observations indicate only relatively minor fish kills. They have authority to postpone or relocate the release of shots should large schools of fish be detected at the proposed position of shooting.


COMPLAINTS RESPECTING CARE OF VETERANS, HAMILTON, ONT.
Mr. Groos: 1.	Has the Minister of Veterans Affairs received a letter dated August 5 from the president of the federation of British Canadian veterans of Canada, from Hamilton, Ontario, expressing concern at the alleged poor treatment received by some older veterans under D.V.A. care, and living in private nursing homes?
2.	Will the minister have these allegations looked into, and will he advise the house of the results of the investigations and of any action he feels should be taken to protect the health and welfare of the veterans concerned?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Yes; on 10 August, 1964.
2.	The allegations have been looked into by officials of the city of Hamilton and the

Department of Veterans Affairs in Hamilton. They have not been substantiated.


C.N.R. AGENCY AT AUDEN, ONT.
Mr. Fisher: Is Canadian National Railways planning to close its agency at Auden, Ontario and, if so, what has been the annual revenue for this agency in each of the past five years?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
Information which is currently available is contained in application to remove the agent at Auden, which was filed on May 19, 1964, with the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and is as follows: January to December 1962, $34,614; January to December 1963, $25,127. Information for other years is not immediately available.


* PROSECUTIONS FOR WATER POLLUTION
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What Is the chronology and what are the details, in so far as D.O.T. knows them, regarding the water pollution charge laid against captain Kurt Steinick, of a Norwegian freighter which was apparently settled when he forfeited bail by failing to appear in a Port Arthur court?
2.	What authority, if any, under the Criminal Code, or under any other statutes of the federal government can be used to prosecute those who pollute navigable waters and harbours?
3.	Has the lakehead harbour commission authority to police and to charge offenders in such matters?
4.	Has the lakehead harbour commission authority to establish facilities or a depot for disposal ol waste oil and other detritus of ships using the harbour and, if so, has it done anything about it?
5.	Has the department any intention of tightening its policy on pollution by shipping in navigable waters?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. On June 26, 1964, at 11:45 a.m. the M.S. Katia Banck, of Helsingborg, Norway, was reported by the lakehead harbour police to have discharged oil into the waters of Port Arthur harbour. Following an investigation by a steamship inspector, an information was laid against the master, Kurt Steinick. The case came to court on June 29 but the vessel having sailed meantime, bail of $50 was forfeited.
2.	Section 4 of the oil pollution prevention regulations, P.C. 1960-166, made under authority of section 495 of the Canada Shipping Act, makes it an offence for any person to discharge or allow to escape from a ship into the inland, minor or other waters of Canada any oil or oily mixture which fouls the surface of the water.
Questions
3.	Yes.
4.	The commissioners have the authority to establish the necessary facilities. Establishment of such facilities would however be a substantial financial undertaking. The commissioners have not yet reached the point where such expenditures are considered justifiable and within their means.
5.	A number of convictions for offences have been registered under the present regulations. A proposal is now before parliament to raise the maximum fine from $500 to $5,000.


TELEVISION STATION PROGRAMS, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Choqueite: With reference to the television station shortly to be opened by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Quebec city (a) what will be the proportion of programs originating in Quebec city, and (b) what will be the proportion of programs originating elsewhere?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the new television station in the beginning will originate an average of approximately eight hours a week of programs in Quebec city. This is approximately 9 per cent of its program schedule. When it moves to its permanent studios in Ste Foy it is expected that CBTV will increase its program originations to an average of approximately 12 hours a week. Further development will depend on resources.


PERSONNEL OF TELEVISION STATION, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Choqueiie: With reference to the television station shortly to be opened by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Quebec city (a) who is the manager or administrator (b) who is the director of programs, and (c) what are the names of the station's personnel?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
(a)	Mr. Rene Dussault, manager, Quebec city; Mr. Roger Morin, director T.V. services.
(b)	Mr. Louis Leclerc, program director T.V.
(c)	The combined Quebec city staff for radio and television is 133 with 66 in television, 28 in radio and 39 common to both services. About 90 per cent of the employees are from Quebec city.
Questions


CANADIAN TELEVISION STATIONS
Mr. Choqueite: 1.	What is the total number of television stations in Canada and what are the call letters of each?
2.	What is the total number of French language television stations in Canada, what are the call letters and location of each?
3.	How many of the stations have bilingual programming?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. (a) The total number of television broadcasting stations in Canada as of August 1, 1964 was 195. (b) The list of broadcasting stations in Canada which includes the call letters of all stations is a publication available from the queen's printer.
2.	Television stations in Canada are not licensed to broadcast in either English or French specifically. The licence does not designate the language to be broadcast. It is not possible, therefore, to specify the total number of French television stations in Canada.
3.	Seventeen television stations have bilingual programming.


CANADIAN RADIO STATIONS
Mr. Choquetie: 1.	What is the total number of radio stations in Canada and what are the call letters of each?
2.	What is the total number of French language radio stations in Canada, what are the call letters and location of each?
3.	How many of the stations have bilingual programming?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. (a) The total number of broadcasting stations in Canada as of August 1, 1964 was 541. The number of stations in each of the following classes is as follows: Sound-standard band (AM), 258; Sound-FM, 49; AM short wave, 39; Television, 195. (b) The list of broadcasting stations in Canada which includes the call letters of all stations is a publication available from the queen's printer.
2.	Radio stations in Canada are not licensed to broadcast in either English or French specifically. The licence does not designate the language to be broadcast. It is not possible, therefore, to specify the total number of French radio stations in Canada.
3.	Thirty two radio stations have bilingual programming.


NATIONAL FRENCH RADIO NETWORK
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,721
Mr. Choqueite:: Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the process of establishing a national French language radio network and, if so, on what date is it

expected that the network will commence operation?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the national French language radio network at present extends through eight of the 10 provinces of Canada from Nova Scotia to Alberta, making its programs available to 94 per cent of Canadians whose mother tongue is French. Each year new stations are being added to the French network in unserved areas and the C.B.C will continue to increase its coverage in so far as its financial resources allow.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS TO CANADIAN WORKERS IN U.S.
Mr. Dionne: 1.	What reasons were given by the representatives of the employment security commissions of Maine and New Hampshire, which prevent an agreement being reached whereby Canadian workers in the United States might be considered eligible for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act?
2.	In the years 1962 and 1963, how many Canadians were employed on American soil in the states of Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont?
3.	On what basis were agreements reached with the other American states and on what dates were the various agreements signed?
4.	What proposals were submitted by the Canadian government to American authorities with a view to reaching an understanding?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1. The reasons given by the employment security commission of Maine for being unwilling to enter the reciprocal arrangement were the present condition of their reserve fund, the present economy of the state, and the unevenly balanced flow of workers across the border As almost all the traffic is one way, i.e. persons returning to Canada after working in Maine, the employment security commission thought that there would be too great an increase in the cost to their unemployment insurance fund. The New Hampshire department of employment security stated that New Hampshire was not prepared to make the amendment in its law required to provide for participation in an agreement with Canada.
2.	The national employment service does not have information concerning the number of Canadians that were employed on American soil in the states of Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont.
3.	Agreements with the other American states were reached on the basis that, so far as possible, the provisions of the reciprocal

arrangement already in effect among the states themselves should be extended and applied to Canada provided, however, that it should be optional for each state whether or not to participate in the arrangement with Canada. In the United States each state operates its own unemployment insurance plan. In 1942 the government of Canada and the government of the United States entered into a master agreement in substantially the same terms as that existing among the states. The government of the United States agreed to recommend to each of the states that it carry out the provisions of that agreement with respect to Canada, but no state can be compelled to participate in the agreement if it prefers not to do so. Under this arrangement a person who is working in one of the subscribing states and who subsequently becomes unemployed in Canada may claim benefit from the state in question, through an office of the unemployment insurance commission in Canada. If he is entitled to benefit under the law of that state, the benefit payments are made to him by that state. The local office of the unemployment insurance commission in Canada where he has filed his claim certifies the facts regarding his being unemployed and available for work and forwards such certification to the liable state.
Decision of a state to participate in the agreement is notified by letter to the unemployment insurance commission of Canada either through the bureau of employment security at Washington or directly to the commission. Notices of participation by the states were received as follows: In 1943 from 29 states; between 1943 and 1952 from 14 states; and between 1952 and 1958 from 3 states; leaving four non-participating states, namely Alabama, Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire.
4.	The proposals submitted to the American authorities were that the non-participating states should enter the reciprocal arrangement under the same conditions as the other 46 states which are participating in the arrangement. Such proposals were submitted for consideration on several occasions by letter, by informal discussions between Canadian and American officials, and by discussions at several formal conferences, including meetings in 1959, in 1962 and in 1963.


ESTABLISHMENT OF AIRPORT, NORTH QUEENS COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: Is the government giving any consideration to establishing an airport in North Queens county,
Questions
Nova Scotia, adequate to service the Annapolis valley and south shore area of the province?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at the present time.


RUNWAY IMPROVEMENT, TRENTON, N.S. AIRPORT
Mr. MacEwan: Has the Minister of TransDort received a resolution from local 1231, United Steelworkers of America, Trenton, Nova Scotia, urging an extension to the runways and the provision of runway lighting at the Trenton airport, Trenton, Nova Scotia, and, if so, will the minister give immediate consideration to these important matters?


John Whitney Pickersgill: A resolution from local 1231, United Steelworkers of America, Trenton, Nova Scotia, has been received by the Department of Transport. The contents of the resolution have been studied by the department but this study failed to establish a clear operational requirement for the improvements included. While no immediate action is contemplated the matter will be kept under review.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is the present feasibility study of the Prince Edward Island causeway now proceeding on the assumption that such a structure will not contain railway tracks?
2.	Has the government received an offer from an individual or individuals to erect such a structure, and. if so, what is the response to such a suggestion?


Hon. J. P. Deschaielets (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No decision has been made as to whether the crossing will not contain railway tracks.
2. The government has received a proposal, but is not in a position, at the present time, to make any reply to the suggestion.


APPLICATIONS FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION LICENCES
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What applications are presently before the Department of Transport for radio A.M. and/or F.M. and T.V. station licences, throughout the Dominion of Canada?
2.	Who are the applicants, and on what frequencies do they propose to operate, and with what power?
3.	What is the location of each of the proposed radio stations and what is the proposed area of coverage of each?
4.	What other stations do the applicants have an interest in?
5.	What stations are the proposed stations to be affiliated with?

Questions


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1, 2 and 3.
When would-be licencees first approach the Department of Transport, either informally or formally, it is not always possible to determine to what extent technical requirements can be satisfied so that a formal application can be passed on for consideration by the board of broadcast governors. Considerable technical examination and study is often necessary at
this preliminary stage. For this reason it has been customary to release information on applications only at the stage when these are passed to the board of broadcast governors for consideration.
At the present time the following applications for new radio and television licences have been transmitted by the department to the board of broadcast governors but have not yet been the subject of a recommendation from that board.
Applicant	Proposed station location	Type of station	Power	Frequency or channelNewfoundland Broadcasting Co. Ltd.	Cornerbrook, Nfld-	Television	effective radiated power 410 W. (video) 205 W. (audio)	10Vantel Broadcasting Co. Ltd...	Chilliwack, B.C. (Vedder Mountain)	Television rebroadcasting	5 W.	11Twin Cities Television Ltd	Blue River, B.C	Television rebroadcasting	5 VV.	3Northern Radio-Radio Nord Inc.	Metagami, Que	Television rebroadcasting	5 W.	6Northern Radio-Radio Nord Inc.	Val d'Or, Que	Television rebroadcasting	5 W.	8Northern Radio-Radio Nord Inc.	Ville Marie, Que	Television rebroadcasting	5 W.	6Inland Broadcasters Ltd	Savona, B.C	Sound FM	effective radiated power 8.1 VV.	101.9 Mc/sInland Broadcasters Ltd	Clearwater, B.C	Sound FM	effective radiated power 22 W.	92.7 Mc/sA Company to be Incorporated Represented by Roy E. Bonisteel	St Catharines, Ont	Sound standard band	2500 VV. (daytime only)	1500 kc/sA Company to be Incorporated Represented by Rober E. Redmond	St. Catharines, Ont...	Sound standard band	1000 W. (daytime only)	1500 k/sDepartment of National Defence	Lowther, Ont	Sound standard band	20 W.	1490 kc/sNewfoundland Broadcasting Co. Ltd.	St. John's Nfld	Sound FM	effective radiated power 1600 VV.	93.7 Mc/sInland Broadcasters Ltd	Merritt, B.C	Sound FM	12 W.	103.9 Mc/sCanadian Broadcasting Corporation	Beauce, P.Q	Television rebroadcasting	effective radiated pow'er 4500 VV. (video) 2250 W. (audio)	6Twin Cities Television Ltd.	Bralorne, B.C	Television rebroadcasting	5W.	3Sunwapta Broadcasting Co. Ltd.	Whitecourt, Alta.	Television [DOT]	5 W.	7SEPTEMBER 9, 1964	Questions	7775Applicant	Proposed station location	Type of Station	Power	Frequency or ChannelTwin Cities Television Ltd.	Canoe Mountain, (near Valemont) B.C.	Television rebroadcasting	5 W.	8C.K.R.T.-TV Ltee	Riviere du Loup, P.Q.	Television rebroadcasting	5 W.	2La Cie de Radiodiffusion de Matane Ltee	Grande Vallee, P.Q...	Television rebroadcasting	5 W.	11Twin Cities Television Ltd.	Promontory Mountain, B.C.	Television rebroadcasting	5 W.	5A Company to be Incorporated Represented by J. H. Jefferies	Prince Rupert, B.C....	Sound standard band	1000 watts day & night	560 kc/sThe board has reserved its decision on a recommendation with respect to the following applications:-	Applicant	Proposed station location	Type of station	Power	Frequency or ChannelCanadian Broadcasting Corporation	Cold Lake, Alta	Television rebroadcasting	Effective radiated power 560 W. (Video) 280 W. (audio)	12 ;Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	St. Paul, Alta	Television rebroadcasting	20,300 W. (video) 10,100 W. (audio)	9A Company to be Incorporated Represented by J. Fred Weber	Prince Rupert B.C	Sound standard band	1,000 watts day 250 watts night	560 kc/sCanadian Broadcasting Corporation	Rochebaucourt, P.Q...	Low power Relay transmitter	40 W.	990 kc/s
4 and 5. Details relating to ownership and affiliation are matters for board of broadcast governors consideration and to the extent relevant, may be made known through the proceedings of that board.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING DUCK AND GEESE CONSERVATION
Mr. Fisher: Has the Canadian wildlife service received a copy of the representation of Thomas O. Nelson of Fergus Falls, Minn, dated August 1, 1964 in which a plea is made for a new or extended policy on ducks and geese conservation and, if so, what analysis does the service make of Mr. Nelson's arguments and what is its judgment on their value?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Yes, on August 10, 1964. Mr. Nelson's statement of
20220-491J
the components of a migratory bird conservation policy is essentially the same as that which has been prepared by the Canadian wildlife service. Studies which are under way at the present time are expected to point to the means of putting such a policy into effect.


INSTALLATION OF PIPE ORGAN, PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE, OTTAWA
Mr. MacEwan: Has a brief been received by G. H. Southam, co-ordinator of the advisory committees for the proposed national centre for the performing arts from the Royal Canadian College of Organists asking that a pipe organ be installed in the new centre and, if so, has a decision been reached on the matter and, if not, when can a decision be expected?

Questions


Maurice Lamontagne: A brief from the Royal Canadian College of Organists asking that a pipe organ be installed in the proposed Canadian centre for the performing arts was received by the co-ordinator for the centre on June 10. The complicated artistic and technical aspects of the matter are being studied, in co-operation with R.C.C.O. representatives, by the coordinator's advisory committee on music, opera and ballet, by his advisory committee on the theatre, and by the consulting architects. A decision is expected within the next two months.


CANADA-U.S. CO-OPERATION IN WILDLIFE PROTECTION
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,778
Mr. Scott:: 1.	Has the Canadian government received a communication from Mr. Thomas O. Nelson, 406 South Cascade street, Fergus Falls, Minnesota relating to the need for joint action between the various Canadian governments in the fields of conservation and protection for the continent's wild fowl and, if so, what action has the government taken to deal with the particular problems raised in the said communication?
2.	What action has the government taken to promote joint co-operation among the various provincial and government agencies to the end that is set out in the said letter?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, on August 10, 1964. The first step in the dealing with the particular problems raised in Mr. Nelson's letter had already been taken in 1961 when an international migratory bird committee was formed to examine these problems. The committee's first recommendations, tabled in the House of Commons on March 7, 1962,
are being implemented. The work on a more comprehensive program for maintenance of waterfowl habitat management, based on further studies by this committee and the Canadian wildlife service is making a good progress.
2. There has been continuing and close cooperation between the Canadian wildlife service and the provincial game agencies with a view to solving the basic problems set out in Mr. Nelson's letter.


TRANQUILIZER &quot;AMPHEMIDONE&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,787

Mr. Howe (Hamilton
South):
1.	Has a tranquilizer of the generic name of "amphemidone" ever been available in Canada and, if so, under what trade names has it been sold and by what companies?
2.	If it is no longer available in Canada, for what reason was it removed from the market?
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No.
2. See answer to 1 above.


COST OF HISTORICAL SITES, N.S. AND N.B.
Mr. Fairweather: What are the comparative figures for the past five years for which figures are available for moneys spent or approved for restoration, rebuilding or acquisition of historical works or sites in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?


Arthur Laing: Expenditures for restoration, rebuilding or acquisition of historic sites in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for the fiscal years 1959-60 to 1963-64 inclusive:
CMr.'MacEwan.l

Questions
Historic sites			Fiscal years			
1959-60	1960-61	1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	TotalNova Scotia	*	*	$	1	$	$Halifax citadel	
Martello tower Halifax	
George island	
Champlain habitation	
Bell museum, Baddeck	
Grand Pre	
Port Royal	
Fort Anne	
General projects	
Fortress of Louisbourg	. 121,632 . 12,794 . 29,125 . 37,415 . 28 . 1,155 . 6,750	225,877 23,496 35,162 13,312 33,103 22,385 71,190 7,466 9,201	325,255 29,383 29,647 55,154 5,000 859,736	314,250 19,950 113,919 8,616 89,197 24,863 487 1,455,964	180,987 62,969 30,220 29,688 14,214 2,708 665 1,563,008	1,168,001 56,240 212,050 13,312 130,447 208,332 165,449 16,816 665 3,894,659Nova Scotia sub totals	. 208,899	441,192	1,304,175	2,027,246	1,884,459	5,865,971New Brunswick	Fort Beausejour	
Martello tower, St. John	
Martello tower, Lancaster	
St. Andrews	. 1,409	24,963 38,818	1,959 9,997	5,170 15,655 13,329	33,501 38,818 25,652 13,329New Brunswick sub totals	, 1,409	63,781	-	11,956	34,154	111,300Totals for each year	
Grand total for the five year period....	. 210,308	504,973	1,304,175	2,039,202	1,918,613	5,977,271


OLD AGE PENSION RECIPIENTS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Of Canadians in receipt of the old age pension, what proportion has (a) no additional income (b) additional income not exceeding (i)	$100 (ii)
$500 (iii) $1,000 (iv) $5,000 (v) $10,000.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The old age security program provides for the payment of a flat rate pension of $75 per month, without a means or needs test, to all persons aged 70 or over who can meet certain residence requirements.
For this reason the department has no knowledge of other income of any recipient of old age security.


FOOD TESTS FOR CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Does the government maintain checks on the presence of herbicidal, pesticidal, or other chemical contaminants in (a) milk and dairy products (b) meat (c) poultry and eggs (d) fruit and vegetables (e) fresh water fish (f) marine fish?
2.	For which chemicals are tests conducted?
3.	For each of these chemicals, what is the permissible level of contamination?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes. The food and drug directorate of the Department of
National Health and Welfare conducts continuing surveys for all types of pesticide residues in milk and dairy products, meat, poultry and eggs, fruit and vegetables, fresh water fish and marine fish.
2.	Tests are conducted for all chemicals likely to be of concern due to known toxicity or because of suspected abuse or misuse.
3.	Under the food and drug regulations, there have been established permitted residue levels for 73 pesticide chemicals. Any chemical not so listed cannot be used or, if used, must not result in a residue in food.


RELATIONS OF QUEBEC CAISSES POPULAIRES WITH BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	Do the eaisses populaires of Quebec deal directly with the Bank of Canada through their federation and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What conditions would be required to enable them to deal directly with the Bank of Canada?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. The eaisses
populaires of Quebec have not maintained deposit accounts with the Bank of Canada or obtained advances from the bank, nor has their federation, but there have been dealings in connection with new issues of Canada savings bonds.

Questions
2. There is no legislative requirement for the caisses populaires of Quebec or their federation to maintain cash reserves in the form of Bank of Canada notes and deposits with the bank, and there is no legislative provision for the bank to receive deposits from, or to make advances to, the caisses populaires of Quebec or their federation.

SERVICES OP MARINE INDUSTRIES LTD. RESPECTING "NEW GRAND haven"
Question No. 1,809


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: 1.	What payments were made to Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, Quebec, as appraisers of the New Grand Haven?
2.	What payments were made to Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, Quebec, for purchasing and holding the New Grand Haven for the federal government until treasury board approval could be obtained?
3.	If no payments were made for either of the above, what commitments were given the above firm for services rendered?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. None.
2.	None.
3.	None.


* RESTRICTIONS ON SEAL HUNTING, GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE
Mr. Mather: Will steps be taken prior to the opening of the 1965 sealing season to prohibit seal chases by airplanes and helicopters in the gulf of St. Lawrence?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: There is no intention of prohibiting the use of aircraft entirely, but their use will be subject to stricter regulation.


GREAT LAKES FISHERY CATCH
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): In each of the last ten years, what has been the total catch of the great lakes commercial fishery?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Commercial Catch of Fish of the Great Lakes, 1954-63
Canada	U.S.A.	Total000 lb.	000 lb.	000 lb.1954	40,888	79,747	120,6351955	39,391	75,198	114,5891956	53,239	78,948	132,1871957	44,852	74,039	118,891Canada	U.S.A.	Total000 lb.	000 lb.	000 lb.1958	39,317	68,897	108,2141959	40,937	63,463	104,4001960	38,781	65,936	104,7171961	46,238	67,140	113,3781962	54,566	61,850	116,4161963	45,038	N.A.	N.A.
Source: Canada, fisheries statistics, Ontario, published by the dominion bureau of statistics.
U.S.A., fishery statistics of the United States.


DEATHS FROM BOATING ACCIDENTS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
In each province, how many deaths have there been from recreational boating accidents in each of the last five years?


Mitchell William Sharp: Fatal accidents due to submersion of occupant of small boat, (international list No. E850-a small boat being defined as any watercraft propelled by paddle, oars or small motor, with a passenger
capacity of less provinces, 1959-	than 1963:	ten),	for	Canada	and1959	1960	1961	1962	1963Canada	269	291	283	248	271Newfoundland Prince Edward	14	11	17	12	15Island	2	2	-	3	2Nova Scotia	17	24	31	24	25New Brunswick	49	18	20	14	13Quebec	43	38	44	38	55Ontario	77	94	97	95	90Manitoba	20	23	20	12	19Saskatchewan	12	19	14	12	10Alberta	18	11	9	4	13British Columbia 16	43	28	30	24Yukon Northwest	-	-	-	1	2Territories	1	8	3	3	3


DEATHS FROM ALCOHOLISM, ETC.
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): In each province, in each of the last ten years, what has been the death rate per thousand attributable to (a) alcoholism (b) drug addiction (c) suicide?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a)

Questions
Death rates (per 100,000 population) for alcoholism*, Canada and provinces, 1954-1963
Province	1954	1955	1956	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963Canada	1.7	1.7	1.8	2.0	2.4	2.1	2.2	2.3	2.3	2.6Newfoundland	0.8	0.7	0.2	0.5	0.5	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	-Prince Edward Island	5.0	2.0	2.0	1.0	2.0	4.0	2.9	3.8	1.9	2.8Nova Scotia	1.0	0.6	0.1	0.9	0.7	0.1	0.4	1.6	1.2	0.4New Brunswick	1.1	0.4	0.5	1.2	1.2	0.7	0.5	0.7	0.7	2.3Quebec	2.2	2.5	2.4	2.8	2.8	2.6	2.6	2.3	2.7	3.0Ontario	1.6	1.7	2.0	2.1	2.8	2.5	2.5	2.8	2.9	3.0Manitoba	1.0	0.6	0.7	0.7	1.5	1.3	2.5	2.0	1.7	2.1Saskatchewan	0.6	0.5	0.8	1.4	1.5	0.9	0.8	0.6	1.6	0.9Alberta	1.3	1.4	1.0	1.3	1.8	1.0	1.3	2.0	1.8	1.9British Columbia	2.5	2.0	2.3	2.6	2.4	2.4	2.9	3.1	1.9	3.2Yukon	10.0	-	16.4	-	-	-	-	-	6.7	6.7Northwest Territories	-	-	-	-	10.0	4.8	4.5	-	-	4.2*Includes alcoholism	(category	322);	alcoholic psychosis	(category	307);	cirrhosis of liver with alcoholism (category 581.1).

(6)
DEATHS DUE TO DRUG ADDICTION (OTHER THAN ALCOHOL) (Rate per 100 000 population)
Canada and Provinces, 1954-1963 (Category 323)
1954	1955	1956	1957	1958	1959	I960	1961	1962	1963	Province	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	Rate	No.	RateCanada	-	-	5	(i)	6	(i)	5	(i)	3	(i)	1	(i)	2	0)	3	(i)	2	0)	5	0)Newfoundland	
-	-	-	-	-	-	1	0.2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Prince Edward Island	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Nova Scotia	
-	-	-	-	1	0.1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-New Brunswick	
-	-	1	0.2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Quebec	
-	-	2	(1)	3	0.1	1	(1)	1	(i)	1	(i)	2	(i)	-	-	2	(0	2	(i)Ontario	
-	-	2	(1)	2	(1)	2	(1)	1	(i)	-	-	-	-	3	(i)	-	-	3	(i)Manitoba	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Y ukon	
Northwest Territories	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
-	-	-	-	-	-	1	0.1	1	0.1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
(1>
Less than 0.1 per 100,000 population
7780	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

Orders for Returns
(International list No. AE 148)


SUICIDE RATES PER 100,000 POPULATION CANADA AND PROVINCES, 1954-1963
[Stage Direction]
Province	1954	1955	1956	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963Canada	.... 7.2	7.0	7.6	7.5	7.4	7.4	7.6	7.5	7.2	7.6Newfoundland	.... 2.0	1.5	2.2	3.3	2.5	3.2	2.7	3.7	1.9	3.3Prince Edward Island	.... 7.9	6.0	4.0	6.1	7.0	3.0	7.8	6.7	3.8	5.6Nova Scotia	.... 4.0	5.3	3.9	7.1	4.8	4.2	8.0	5.2	6.0	6.1New Brunswick	.... 2.8	4.2	4.3	3.2	5.3	5.5	4.6	5.0	5.9	4.7Quebec	.... 4.7	4.4	5.3	5.4	4.9	5.1	5.0	4.6	5.0	4.8Ontario	.... 8.0	7.8	8.6	8.7	8.5	8.7	8.6	8.8	8.2	8.9Manitoba	.... 7.0	9.2	9.4	8.0	9.7	7.3	11.1	7.6	8.4	8.5Saskatchewan	.... 9.7	10.4	8.6	8.5	9.3	7.5	8.2	10.2	7.8	9.8Alberta	.... 10.1	8.8	10.2	9.0	9.2	9.4	9.2	8.9	8.5	7.6British Columbia	.... 13.7	11.6	12.4	11.0	11.2	11.4	10.1	11.8	10.3	13.0Yukon	.... 10.0	-	25.0	-	23.1	7.7	14.3	34.2	-	13.3Northwest Territories	.... 5.9	16.7	26.3	-	-	19.0	9.1	13.0	29.2	4.2

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,843
William Dean Howe: What is the current rate of population increase in each province and in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Rate of population increase, Canada and provinces, 1963-1964 and 1961-1964
Rate of increase
Province	1963-64	1961-64Canada	1.8	5.5Newfoundland	2.1	7.2Prince Edward Island	-	1.9Nova Scotia	0.8	3.4New Brunswick	0.5	3.2Quebec	1.7	5.8Ontario	2.1	5.6Manitoba	0.8	3.9Saskatchewan	1.1	1.9Alberta	1.9	7.5British Columbia	2.5	6.7Yukon	6.7	14.3Northwest Territories	4.2	8.7


SALES TAX EXEMPTION ON WORN OUT PRODUCTION GOODS
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue recently received a submission from the Canadian fasteners institute asking that exemptions be made from sales tax on production goods worn out or expended during manufacturing operations and, if so, what is the date and substance of the said submission?
2.	Did the brief request relief from certain taxation and, if so, on what grounds did it ask for any such relief?
3.	Has the government given consideration to the request outlined in such submission and, if so, what steps does the government intend to take in this regard?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Yes, August 11. The substance of the brief is that the tax on production goods increases the cost of production in a market in which foreign competition is present.
2.	Yes. See part 1 above.
3.	Consideration is being given to this submission; however, any decision in this regard will be a matter of government policy.


REVENUE FROM SALES TAX ON DRUGS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): What has been the revenue to the government from the 11 per cent sales tax on drugs, in each year since the imposition of the tax?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National
Revenue): This information is not available. Statistics relating to sales tax collected according to commodities are not maintained.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Do all government departments issue bilingual cheques in all parts of Canada?
2.	If not, which departments do not issue bilingual cheques and for what reasons?
3.	Do all crown corporations issue bilingual cheques in all parts of Canada?
4.	If not, which crown corporations do not issue bilingual cheques and for what reasons?
Return tabled.

Motions for Papers


PUBLIC SERVANTS RECEIVING $18,000 OR MORE ANNUALLY
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What are the names of those civil servants who are in receipt of a salary in excess of $18,000 per annum?
2.	What is the exact salary of each?
3.	What is the position that each fills?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. J. B. Siewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 162 is acceptable to the government. Motions 160 and 161 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning the consent of the government of the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that motion 162 be carried, and that motions 160 and 161 be carried, subject to the reservations stated by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ASSISTANCE TOR QUEBEC MAPLE SYRUP PRODUCERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 160-Mr. Boutin:
That an	humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the Minister of Forestry and the minister of agriculture for the province of Quebec, since April, 1964, concerning a request for financial assistance for producers of maple sugar and maple syrup in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to.
Motion No. 161-Mr. Boutin:
That an	humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the federal Minister of Agriculture and the minister of agriculture for the province of Quebec, since April, 1964, concerning the request for financial assistance for producers of maple sugar and maple syrup in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 162-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a list of the names of any illegal entrants to Canada since July 1, 1963 who were detained for more than one month before being deported or charged in court and the reason for the length of this detention?
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Pigeon.)


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Soulh Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will give a report to the house concerning the situation in Malaysia due to the unprovoked attack on that country by Indonesia; whether the minister will let us know what request has been made by the Malaysian government for assistance from Canada and what response Canada has made to that request; and third, what aid is being given to Malaysia by other commonwealth countries.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Malaysia has taken a more serious turn within the last few days. The full consequences of the increased intervention by Indonesia are not yet clear. When the prime minister of Malaysia was here the Prime Minister and I conferred with him, with the result that, as the Prime Minister announced on the 29th of July, it was decided that a Canadian military survey group would proceed to Malaysia to determine the kind of assistance which could be provided, bearing in mind particularly the contributions which would be made by other countries. The British government itself is engaged in a similar assessment, and, as my hon. friend knows, the government of Malaysia has recently discussed with the government of the United States what assistance that country might give.
At the present time there is a Malaysian mission in Washington looking over certain possible kinds of purchases, and we anticipate that this group will be in Canada within the course of a very few days. This visit may concern a particular type of aircraft. The decision in that regard will have to be made subject to our own assessment of the situation and the wishes of the government of Malaysia. Consideration will then be given as to the means of financing these operations. The survey group which the Prime Minister announced on July 29 is expected to leave for Malaysia very shortly.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, regard being had to the naked aggression practised by Indonesia against Malaysia, has the government given reconsideration to the question of

terminating once and for all assistance to Indonesia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration. I may say that, in consultation with other countries such as Australia, we have considered the matter, but no country has decided to withdraw such assistance to Indonesia, on the theory that assistance of a non-military kind given by western countries has not traditionally borne any political motivation. However, the matter is being reviewed. In the case of Canada, part of our assistance is in respect of aid to students, some of whom are now on their way.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to student exchanges; I am referring to food and other such supplies which can have the effect of indirectly rendering available, as the hon. member for Oxford has said, additional foreign exchange, which seems a form of help to Indonesia not justified regardless of the fact that restrictions are not attached to such assistance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly aware that the right hon. gentleman was not referring to technical assistance, but I am also aware that other countries have pursued the course I have indicated, and no country has yet cancelled its program. The other form of assistance provided for by Canada in the estimates for 1964-65 is wheat flour in the amount of $350,000. There has been no shipment of flour under this allocation. As I indicated a moment ago, this whole question is under consideration. I would not wish at this time, as external affairs minister, to subscribe summarily to the statement made by the right hon. gentleman a few moments ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of summarily subscribing to my suggestion. This matter has been before the minister for several weeks, and the situation has become worse and worse in relation to Malaysia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to suggest to the right hon. gentleman that there ought to be occasions on orders of the day when the right hon. gentleman should consider that he has responsibilities, which I do not think he fully discharges.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to Malaysia. Are the press reports correct which state that the government of Malaysia is understood to have made an urgent request to Canada for military and economic aid in its struggle against Indonesia? The minister seemed to indicate that there was a time lag involved here, with some party coming up from Washington. Has there been an urgent request, and what has been Canada's response?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is no time lag. My hon. friend is referring to a story which appeared in one of the leading Canadian newspapers this morning. There has been no request made beyond the request made by the Tunku when he was here three weeks ago. I may say that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he was in Kuala Lumpur the other day at the commonwealth economic conference, had further consultations with the government of Malaysia along the lines which were discussed between the prime minister of that country and the representatives of the government of Canada a few weeks ago.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I then direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Did he at that conference give as prompt a reply in respect of aid from Canada as was apparently given by other nations of the commonwealth to Malaysia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the ministers of the government of Malaysia along exactly the lines indicated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


AGREEMENT WITH SPAIN RESPECTING PEACEFUL USE OF ATOMIC ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the agreement which has recently been signed between the governments of Canada and Spain for co-operation in the peaceful use of atomic energy. I should like to ask the minister what precautions and what iron-bound guarantees are there to ensure that the information and materials in-

Inquiries of the Ministry volved cannot be used for other than peaceful purposes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This agreement, as the other eight or nine, Mr. Speaker, is subject to safeguards similar to those laid down by the international atomic energy agency, with headquarters in Vienna. Canada subscribes to such safeguards which are obligatory on both countries. In the case of this agreement Spain is obliged to maintain certain standards, and subject itself to inspections to guarantee that these safeguards are observed. The result is that such atomic installations and materials are used only for peaceful purposes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In addition to the exchange of information, does the agreement provide for the supplying by Canada to Spain of any uranium concentrate, heavy water or other materials?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give further consideration to that question, and I will take it as notice.


REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION OF REBEL REGIME
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government of Canada received any request for diplomatic recognition from the rebel regime of the eastern Congo?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker. I will take notice of that question.


COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetfe (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister?
Has the Prime Minister been consulted or is he aware of a report to the effect that Great Britain will ask Canada to undertake the defence of the British possessions in the Caribbean area? If so, what has been the reaction of the Prime Minister or of the government?


Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report to which my hon. friend has referred, but to my knowledge there has certainly been no consultation between the two governments on this matter recently.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether this matter has been discussed during the commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference in London?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, it was not discussed then.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marfineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Has the government received either from the United States government or the international monetary fund any representations, or has any pressure been brought to bear, to have the Canadian government revalue the Canadian dollar at a higher rate?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, the Acting Minister of Finance will deal with that question.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I answer as Acting Minister of Finance. The government sees no reason to change the official par value of the Canadian dollar, which it is committed and well able to maintain.


Mr. Martineau:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for the information, but will he say whether he has received any such representations from the United States government or other sources?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question

to the Prime Minister. The speech from the throne on February 18 stated:
You will be asked to consider measures to strengthen the position of periodicals published in Canada.
In view of the fact that Liberty magazine has been forced to suspend after 32 years of continuous publication in Canada, will the Prime Minister tell the house when he proposes to do something to help Canadian periodicals survive in the battle for the market with United States publications?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr, Speaker, I should like to think we would be able to deal with this matter during the current session.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice which is prompted by a speech made by the deputy attorney general of Ontario, as reported in the press. Is the government giving any consideration to introducing the principle of diminishing responsibility in the law on insanity as applied to criminal offences?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this is one matter which the Department of Justice under my jurisdiction has under study at present.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY COMPLAINTS RESPECTING PAYMENT FOR PROPERTY PURCHASED OR EXPROPRIATED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works a question which has application from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In view of complaints from property owners whose properties are purchased or expropriated in connection with building or rebuilding certain sections of the trans-Canada highway, does the federal government accept any responsibility for making certain that these property holders are treated fairly and justly, by the withholding of federal grants or through any other procedures?


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be here later today and I will bring the question to his notice.
Inquiries of the Ministry CIVIL DEFENCE



PUBLIC REACTION TO SOUNDING OF SIRENS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence but in his absence possibly I could ask it of the Prime Minister. In view of the generally indifferent reaction to the sounding of air raid sirens in Ottawa on Saturday last, has the Prime Minister considered action to make the public more fully aware of the proper response to such an alarm?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind the hon. member that the siren system that is now in effect was authorized by the previous government and was completed and became operational on November 6, 1961. Perhaps it might be useful to explain a little of what this system is and what has been done in the recent episode concerning the siren.
As hon. members know, there are 31 sirens in the Ottawa-Hull metropolitan area, and these are controlled centrally at the federal warning centre at Carp. There is one main circuit from Carp to the Bell Telephone exchange in Ottawa, and from the exchange there are circuits to individual sirens. These circuits are all leased from the Bell Telephone Company, and the federal warning officer is responsible for activating the sirens in an emergency. There are visible and audible means in the warning centre to show when the sirens have been activated.
All sirens in the metropolitan area started sounding at 14.29 hours on Saturday, September 5, 1964. They were not activated by the federal warning officer, and Bell Telephone informed the department that the sirens were activated by a short circuit in the circuit between Carp and the Bell Telephone exchange, which was caused by a cable being damaged by shotgun pellets. There was no time lost in advising the Department of National Defence and the Bell Telephone Company of what happened, and the subsequent delay in deactivating the circuits was caused by the complexity of the circuits within the Bell Telephone system, so it was not until 15.01 hours that the sirens stopped sounding.
I may also inform the house that the directorate of signals is undertaking a comprehensive investigation of the procedures to be adopted in the case of accidental soundings, with a view to reducing the time lag in

Inquiries of the Ministry deactivating the circuits. Further, I may add that in the pamphlet, "Eleven Steps to Survival" it is set out that it the sirens are sounded the first thing the public should do is turn on their radios, and if the air waves are carrying no special announcement then they can conclude it is a false alarm.


William Dean Howe: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is the public going to be made fully aware of the steps that should be taken, because obviously last Saturday there were not proper steps taken by people with knowledge of what should be done.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I understand the pamphlet "Eleven Steps to Survival" was very widely circulated throughout the country, and in that particular pamphlet all the information and instructions are included.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: As a
supplementary question, in view of the whole uproar caused by one shotgun blast would the minister and the government not consider some new system, as on another occasion it may not be a shotgun blast but another kind of blast that would be more dangerous to everybody and would cause more commotion. Is that going to be repaired and seen to?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: In my answer, Mr. Speaker, I stated the department was investigating the procedures to be followed, and was also investigating the whole system.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: In
view of newspaper reports that at the time of the sounding of the warning sirens in Ottawa no answer could be obtained from the three telephones in the E.M.O. office because no one was on shift duty, could the minister give us any authoritative information as to how much warning the government expects to receive in the event of an invasion, in order to have a staff on duty in the emergency measures office?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that to which the hon. member refers, but I do know there was no delay from the time the people at the Carp centre became aware that the sirens were sounding until they advised both the Department of National Defence and the Bell Telephone Company. I think the time lag was something like four minutes.


Harold Edward Winch: There must be some misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker. My question was about the emergency measures organization office. According to the newspapers it has three

phones, but no answer could be obtained from the office when the sirens went off, because apparently there was nobody on duty. If it is an emergency measures organization how come there is not 24 hour personnel on duty?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into that.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question concerning the emergency measures organization. It seems that an attempt was made to contact radio and T.V. stations but that telephone lines were busy during several minutes. Now, if an emergency really occurred, would there not be a line available to inform all radio and television stations since they have to broadcast messages?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I said a while ago that I would look into that and get the information.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the various parties held a caucus this morning, and following the suggestion by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), is it the intention of the Prime Minister to convene another meeting of the party leaders soon, in order to facilitate the conclusion of the flag debate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, steps are being taken to invite the party leaders to a meeting without delay.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. I would like to ask the minister whether current reports are correct, to the effect that 11 Royal Canadian Navy destroyers will be modernized. I believe the amount involved was stated as

some $21 million and, if so, will this program commence at an early date? The reports refer to the conversion of 11 ships, four of the Mackenzie class and seven of the Resti-gouche class. Finally, could the minister inform the house whether this means that the recently initiated program covering the H.S.S. 2 helicopters, at very substantial cost, will not be carried out?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might be useful if I gave the status of the destroyer conversion program. As hon. members know, in the approved program seven St. Laurent class vessels have been approved for conversion, with the installation of variable depth sonar and helicopter facilities. Three of these have been converted, two in 1963 and one in 1964. Two are currently undergoing conversion, the Saguenay and the Skeena, and two have yet to be converted, the Margaree and the Fraser. Also two ships, the Nipigon and the Annapolis, were approved for construction to the standard of the 205 class conversion. The Nipigon was completed in May, 1964 and the Annapolis is due to be completed by the end of 1964.
There are plans which have not yet been approved-and I think this more directly concerns the hon. member's question-for the remaining 11 D.D.E.'s, four Mackenzie class and seven Restigouche class. It is planned to commence conversion of them in mid-1965, with completion about mid-1969. However, I want to point out to the hon. member that departmental and treasury board approval has not yet been given.


Mr. G. L. Chalferlon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: As a supplementary question, can the minister say whether the government will continue the policy that ships operating on the Pacific coast will be maintained and converted there?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Defence Production is not here I shall be happy to take that question as notice.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. gentleman give consideration to setting aside Thursday, or Monday at the latest, for government legislation in order to present for debate the resolution to amend the Farm Improvement Loans
Inquiries of the Ministry Act, to increase the maximum amount from $7,500 to $15,000? This resolution has been on the order paper since July 13, and the increase is required by farmers at the present time so they may be able to engage in major improvements and construction works before the cold weather sets in.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the proposals of the government for setting aside certain days in the middle of the week for other legislative measures have already been laid before the house but they did not meet, I gather, with general acceptance.


James Alexander McBain: As a supplementary question, is this another piece of legislation that is not ready for debate by parliament?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement the hon. gentleman made in Toronto over the week end I wonder if he is planning to change the regulations under all the statutes pertaining to the Department of Agriculture so that for the word "farmer" there may be substituted the words "grocery grower".


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Maybe a better title would be "minister of food".



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Due to the fact that lamb prices have dropped 8 cents in the last few days, coinciding with the suspension of shipments to the United States by normal suppliers, can the minister give us some real assurance that the Canadian market will receive consideration, at least to the extent of listing the countries of origin as set out by the dominion bureau of statistics in its livestock reports?


Harry William Hays: Lamb prices are supported under the stabilization act to the extent of almost 100 per cent and, of course, when a significant decline in lamb prices occurs the government does support this commodity.
Some time ago the hon. member asked about lamb prices and suggested they were

Inquiries of the Ministry not being quoted in the usual manner. This is not the case. They are quoted as they have always been in the market reports.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: These prices are not quoted in relation to the country of origin, and the chief suppliers to the United States market are listed in that country. If I might quote just a few words-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would ask his question; then we will dispose of it. What is the question?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: The suppliers to the United States voluntarily reduced their exports in the face of a reluctance on the part of that market. The question I am asking is this. Can we not have these imports listed according to the countries of origin?


Harry William Hays: It is evident that the hon. member is confused. If he will come to my office I will explain the whole thing to him.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: On a question of privilege, may I say I am not confused at all. I should like some answer to my question concerning this lamb problem. This is a facet of the Canadian economy which is being neglected.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would put his question on the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO HOLIDAYS FOR STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to tell the house anything further with respect to the question of holidays for the staff of the House of Commons, in view of the fact that our operation is becoming an all year round proposition.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: No, Mr. Speaker, other than to reiterate that this question is receiving active consideration at the moment, and that I hope there will be some information available shortly.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question is addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. When does the government ex-

pect to reach a decision regarding the former Government House and the Wells pavilion property in Edmonton in relation to the centenary project for a provincial museum?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I was able to announce today that an agreement has been reached with the province of Alberta with respect to Government House. In effect, the federal government is returning Government House to the province, also the Wells pavilion near the university hospital, in exchange for a 150 bed domiciliary care hospital beside the Aberhart sanatorium, the cost to be shared by the federal government. This institution will be leased and operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will admission to this new proposed building be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes. While the province will own the building, it will be leased to the department and we shall operate it in the same way as we now operate Government House and the Wells pavilion.
HALIFAX, N.s.



TRANSFER OF HOSPITAL FROM FEDERAL CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberl Muir (Cape Brelon Norih and
Victoria): May I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he is in a position to advise the house whether any discussions have taken place recently with regard to the possible transfer of the Camp Hill veterans hospital at Halifax to other authorities?
Roger-Joseph Teillet: No, Mr. Speaker.



ESTABLISHMENT OF PRICES FOR WHEAT AND COARSE GRAINS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister prepared to answer the question put to him yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar respecting payment for deliveries of grain?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On
August 31 a similar question was addressed to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce in my absence, and at that time my colleague said the wheat board had released

the information to the elevator agents. I have now confirmed this. On August 27 the wheat board provided information as to prices of wheat and coarse grains to the elevator companies, and by this time all elevator agents have received the information. Accordingly, as far as I am aware, farmers can receive payment for the grain immediately they deliver it.


Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roselown-Biggar):: In
the light of that answer may I point out that I have a letter here dated September 3 from a farmer who was unable to obtain payment. In addition I received a telephone call from Rosetown yesterday morning asking why farmers could not get payment for their wheat, and last evening I received another telephone call from a party in my constituency inquiring when he would be paid for wheat in storage in the elevator.


Mitchell William Sharp: These prices were approved some time ago by the government, and as far as I know the wheat board has been distributing the information as quickly as it can. I hope there will be no further delay.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder whether the minister would inquire into these delays, because according to the statement he made the information was given out by the wheat board on August 27. I know that what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said is true and that at many delivery points authorization to make out the grain tickets has not been received.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will do so.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, September 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Churchill.
Warner Herbert Jorgenson: When the house rose at 10.30 last night we were dealing with the attitude of the government toward this particular legislation, and I was
Canadian Flag
expressing some concern over the fact that from numerous sources we have heard the theory advanced that because they know they are faced with a majority of votes the opposition should simply offer token resistance to the motion which is now before the house and permit the issue to come to a vote. I expressed the view that though this might end the debate here in the House of Commons it would certainly not amount to a satisfactory solution as far as the Canadian people are concerned.
The Minister without Portfolio had some interesting observations to make last night on this aspect. The Prime Minister himself offered a suggestion, and it was contained as well in part of the speech made by the leader of the New Democratic party, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
It seems to me that with an issue of this nature, an issue that contains as much emotion as this does, there is a great deal more involved than simply allowing the question to come to a vote and letting the vote decide. What is involved here in something far deeper, namely the question of producing a flag that will be satisfactory to people all across Canada. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, there appeared on Saturday, July 11 of this year an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune which I think deals very fully with this subject, and I should like to place it on the record. It is entitled "Parliament and people" and says:
How political are Canadians?
A foreigner visiting this country must find this a perplexing question. Although the newspapers and air waves provide political news and views in abundance there is a negative undercurrent.
There is a repetitive theme that another election must be avoided at any cost.
Parliament is constantly hectored as a "do nothing" body by the commentators.
Various issues are regarded as being tiresome because they haven't been resolved.
It is difficult to determine whether such views represent the citizen at large or merely are expressions of frustration by the professional political pundits who weary of their task. One thing is certain.
If parliament approved legislation in slap-dash fashion, it would be thoroughly roasted as having abandoned its fundamental responsibility. And undoubtedly the MP's would be reminded again that their $18,000 stipends required them to be more than rubber stamps.
I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. The article continues:
It is one of the assets of our parliamentary system that elections can or must be called once a government has lost control or the confidence of the commons. This places a minority government in a delicate position which can only be maintained by-

Canadian Flag
introducing legislation deemed necessary and desirable by the other factions.
No matter what party a citizen may endorse, his first political allegiance should be given to parliament. The present government's uncertain grasp of this basic political philosophy unfortunately has obscured this for many in the conduct of the flag debates. Pushing the flag bill to an extremity and with indecent haste, the government attempts to cover its own ineptitude by charging its opponents with obstructionism.
This charge appeals to those who like quick uncomplicated decisions. The assumption, however, that parliament is supposed to present only token resistance to a government has no validity in our political system.
Then it goes on to say:
Even though the flag bill couldn't rate any better than priority No. 10,000 in matters that require attention-apart from Mr. Pearson's curious obsession-it certainly has become a stumbling block. The government lost its one chance of having this dealt with in relatively dispassionate terms when it renounced the free vote. Despite this gross error, compounded by the desperate two-flag and two-anthem amendments, we still must hope that parliament somehow will untangle the government without resorting to an election.
The elements of the flag dispute are too vague for articulation on the hustings. If Canadians truly are tired of it as a topic while it is in parliament, it isn't likely to strike a higher or nobler chord on the campaign trail. But despite this, those in parliament who oppose either the proposed new flag or the dragooning tactics employed by the government must, in all conscience, employ whatever restraint they can against arbitrary legislation in the interest of the public.
The people of Canada did not demand that this matter should be resolved at this time. And even most of those who approved Mr. Pearson's design hoped for something more conciliatory than his "stand or fall" ultimatum. At the present stage of this contretemps, the government and not parliament is the obstructionist.
Canadians may get tired of any government but God help us when we get tired of parliament.
I think this sums up very concisely the point of view I was attempting to express last evening. This raises the question of why all this haste has been employed in attempting to ram this legislation through the House of Commons. In the first place the Prime Minister and a number of his colleagues on the other side of the house have stated that this was a solemn commitment made to the Canadian people. I can think of a good many other commitments that were a great deal more solemn than this one. I will not go into detail or try to enumerate them, because hon. members opposite have been reminded of them on several occasions.
It is said that this solemn commitment was given, in effect, in reply to a question asked by a reporter at a press conference in Winnipeg. I rather think it was more of an afterthought, or perhaps the Prime Minister at that time seized upon the opportunity to

please somebody. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine that this represents a solemn commitment when it did not even appear in most ol the campaign literature distributed by the Liberal party during the last election campaign.
The Minister of Transport the other day attempted to shed some light on this situation when he quoted an excerpt from a television broadcast by the present Prime Minister in 1960. He attempted to use this as an example of a solemn commitment the Prime Minister had made at that time. It might have been the statement that was made, but I wonder how it stands up in the face of the theory advanced in this house the other day by the Postmaster General, since at that time the present Prime Minister was in the opposition.
This whole affair, right from the time it was introduced at the Legion convention early in April until today, has been a story of bumbling and mismanagement on the part of this government. As a result national unity in this country has reached the lowest ebb in our history. At the present time we have this situation. We have one group of people ardently supporting the retention of the red ensign as Canada's national flag, and we have another group that supports the maple leaf flag. But I think within these two extremes we have a large majority of Canadians who are sincerely hoping this parliament can produce a distinctive Canadian flag.
I think it is the responsibility of this parliament to do so. It cannot be done by simply calling for a vote on this issue, because we know what will be the result of a vote. To allow it to come to a vote would in my opinion simply be an abdication of our responsibility as an opposition. The problem of national unity would not be resolved; in fact it is my opinion that it would be complicated even further. We would have dissension from one end of this country to the other if this matter were permitted to come to a vote.
As I see it, the only solution is to follow the suggestion that was made originally by the hon. member for Edmonton West, then yesterday by the leader of the New Democratic party, and by others in this house, and refer this question to a committee for decision. Once the committee had brought in its recommendation in a spirit of compromise, the spirit with which they would begin their hearings in a sincere effort to produce a flag, I believe a flag could be produced that would be acceptable to Canadians across this country. I do not think it is possible to produce a flag that would be acceptable to everybody, but

I do believe that if this procedure were followed we could produce a flag that will not carry with it all the recriminations, bitterness and hatred that has characterized this debate. I sincerely hope that the parties in this house can get together and produce that kind of flag. In my opinion it can be done.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I must confess it is with some hesitation that I rise to take part in this debate which has been going on for quite some time, because most of the points one could dwell on have already been made very successfully by previous speakers. However, since I have been invited to voice my opinion, I shall do so this afternoon in all sincerity and I do hope that, in so doing I shall not offend anybody.
The present debate seems to be causing a great deal of confusion and concern in the minds of people, and I do not think any issue has raised such heated discussions throughout the country in the past several years. One has but to read the editorials in Canadian newspapers to realize just how strong a feeling of frustration seems to have come over public opinion as a result of this parliament's inability to reach a decision and give our country a national emblem, something which the great majority of Canadians have been asking for quite a number of years already.
Personally, when I go back to my riding for the week end, like most hon. members I am asked these questions. What is happening in Ottawa? When will we have a flag? Will you settle that question? How will you get out of that deadlock? As a member from Quebec, I must say that this debate is giving rise to strong apprehensions among the moderate element in my province and what worries our people most is the damage that some stands and some speeches can really do to Canadian unity.
I know that national unity has become a rather trite expression and that a lot of people are tired of that old cliche but just the same, whether we want it or not, national unity remains the backbone of our development and an absolute necessity in a country like ours.
Mr. Speaker, I know that during this debate, in speeches from all sides of the house, appeals have been made for national unity, many professions of faith have been made in favour of national unity, so much so that I wonder if those professions of faith and state-
Canadian Flag
ments of love are not in fact stifling national unity.
This reminds me of a historical incident which happened in 1862. While Paris was besieged and the city was in dire poverty, famine drove people to eat dogs, cats and other animals of that kind. Now, there was a poor man of Paris named Chavette who had a dog called Medor, his only faithful friend. The time came when Chavette had to eat his friend Medor. While eating his dog, he would place each bone in Medor's plate and when he was finished, looking at the dog's plate, he said: It is too bad that Medor is not here; it would have such a good meal.
The same attitude is taken with respect to national unity. While paying lip service to national unity we let it crumble, and the day may come if the situation deteriorates, when all that will be left will be the skeleton of national unity, and then we shall say: Poor national unity; we would have been so pleased to re-examine it.
Mr. Speaker, where are we going with the situation which prevails now? Are we not running the risk of deepening a division which certainly should not exist in our country? As members of the Canadian parliament, we have a responsibility to this country which extends from sea to sea and it is our duty not to let this difficult situation get any worse.
I will not say the situation is serious because I do not want to be pessimistic. However, I must certainly acknowledge that it is complicated. If, in the province of Quebec, French Canadians are taking a stand which speaks well for the future not only of the province but of the whole of Canada, it must be said that such a reawakening is often spoiled by extremists. In fact, the efforts of the moderate elements in my province are often misunderstood by my friends from the other provinces. There have been heated exchanges between the two groups these past few years, but our politicians, our faculty members, our businessmen, our great newspapermen, etc. have also made fine efforts to bring the two elements closer together.
This debate and, especially, the present stalemate should not be allowed to place parliament and the whole country in an untenable position.
Both parties seem to have taken irreversible stands and the division is becoming more pronounced every day.
I think that both parties delude themselves.
At any rate, the supporters of the three maple leaf flag are deluding themselves with

Canadian Flag
the thought that their design will be adopted without closure. In my opinion, it is a delusion. It is also a delusion for the supporters of the red ensign to believe that it can be maintained without resorting to an endless filibuster.
For my part I was ready to accept the three maple leaf design, as were thousands of Canadians. However, I must admit that the right hon. Prime Minister could not have acted more clumsily than he did in the circumstances, first of all by requesting a confidence vote on the flag issue and afterwards, in conjunction with his supporters, by making this emblem a party symbol, and, finally, by endeavouring to impose the union jack when nobody had requested it.
The supporters of the red ensign are certainly justified to express their opinion, but I do not think that exaggerated outbursts of emotions will settle anything.
Hon. members have so often used the words "great principle"; they have appealed to principle so much that I wondered whether they were not parodying that sally of Aristide Briand: "Rest on your principles, rest on them the most you can; if you rest on them long enough, they will eventually yield".
Mr. Speaker, there has been undoubtedly excesses of language, but I believe that they have gone beyond the thought of the speaker. However, this has made us realize that such a debate could carry us on delicate grounds.
Both delusions-closure and filibuster- nurtured by both parties must be dispelled in both cases: otherwise parliament as an institution will certainly be affected. A compromise must be reached by all means. Besides, compromise is the whole history of Canada. The very existence of this country is due to a compromise, and its future rests also on compromise, understanding and sacrifices accepted on both sides.
Several compromises have been put forward, but I feel that there is a very simple one which is actually recognized by almost all members. When a measure is at the same time wholeheartedly supported by the Toronto Star, Montreal's Le Devoir, the Montreal Gazette and the former premier of Ontario, Mr. Frost, it can be concluded that it is a compromise acceptable throughout the country.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of a flag with only one maple leaf, instead of the flag bearing three maple leaves which is now proposed. In my opinion, a flag with a single maple leaf would be supported by the majority of Canadians.
[Mr. BalcerJ
I do not want to propose any particular design, because I know that my friend the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) has put forward a flag designed, I must admit, by my brother-in-law.
I feel that I would put myself in a somewhat awkward situation if I were to propose the flag designed by my brother-in-law; nevertheless, I wish him good luck.
Personally, I am ready to accept a flag with a single maple leaf as the symbol of Canada.
I should like to point out that if I support the design with a single maple leaf it is not because the symbol is exclusive to Quebec but because it is a symbol of Canada as a whole.. I would even go so far as saying that it is more a symbol of English Canada than it is of French Canada.
As a second flag, signifying our membership in the commonwealth, I suggest that the red ensign be substituted for the union jack. I appreciate that to suddenly abandon the red ensign would be a much too quick transition for some hon. members and that the shock would perhaps be too sudden. But why could we not adopt the red ensign instead of the union jack, since the acceptance of the union jack as a second flag is so ridiculous that the matter is not even worth discussing.
It would be tragic if, after such a long debate, we could not have a truly distinctive Canadian flag, and that is why a compromise is so essential. We should bear in mind that it is the young people of today who want a distinctive and essentially Canadian flag, the youth in every province of Canada.
I should like to point out to hon. members that they need have no fear, this is not a concession to Quebec, but a concession to the Canada of 1964.
When I go back in my riding and meet young French Canadians expressing separatist feelings, I tell them, as all hon. members do, to be a little more Canadian, in short, true Canadians.
A few weeks ago, one of them told me: "The rest of Canada is asking us to be Canadians and nothing more, to think only in terms of one Canada. Well, why do they still want to keep the union jack which is the emblem of another country?" I think it is worth while to work together in 1964 and do something that is fundamentally Canadian.
I know that it will undoubtedly call for a measure of sacrifice from some older members and that it will be with a degree of nostalgia that they will see another flag replace the red ensign. Unfortunately those are the facts of life.

As a matter of fact, it must be remembered that one day Sir Winston Churchill said: I will never preside over the dismemberment of the British empire. At that time he was wildly applauded, but times have changed. Today if those same Englishmen who applauded Churchill's patriotic speech were asked to take back India, Pakistan or Ceylon, I feel that they would be quite reluctant to do so.
In the course of the debate, several members have stressed the fact that the red ensign was the flag under which our Canadian forces fought in the last war. They were right, and their respect for it is still perfectly justified; our children and our grandchildren will also have every reason to respect it.
Mr. Speaker, I served in the Canadian navy, and let me tell you that if there was anything at that time that burned up Canadian sailors more than anything else it was to be mistaken for British sailors. What they wanted at all costs was to be recognized everywhere as Canadians, purely and simply. That is why one day, as we entered the ports of the royal navy in England, some ordinary Canadian seamen went up and painted a big red maple leaf on their ship's funnel. Those men were not French Canadians any more than they were English Canadians. They were just plain Canadian sailors who were proud to be Canadians and for whom the maple leaf was a distinctive Canadian emblem.
One of the greatest thrills we felt when Canadian ships entered an English port or joined a convoy was to hear the sailors aboard the other ships welcome us with those words: Hello Canada, because of the maple leaf on our funnels.
Mr. Speaker, this tradition, which was established in the navy during the war was maintained and was never criticized by anybody.
As far as I am concerned, at the time I was minister of transport, when colour had to be given to our coastguard, I insisted that a large red maple leaf be painted on the white funnels. Up to now, I have received no criticism at all.
Mr. Speaker, when the three maple leaf flag was introduced, I supported it without any reservation. I saw in it a factor of Canadian unity. I must say that, like many Canadians, I was disappointed by the partisanship which accompanied its introduction. Unfortunately, it has become somewhat too much the emblem of one party.
On the other hand, like many Conservatives, in the province of Quebec in particular, I
Canadian Flag
must recognize that the stand of the majority of my party also disappointed me, and I need not insist further on this matter.
I am, therefore, suggesting the immediate appointment of a committee in order to determine the choice of a flag.
Personally, as I was saying a while ago, I think that a single maple leaf on that flag would be acceptable. And I suggest that we keep the red ensign as a flag commemorating our membership in the commonwealth.
However, I must say that if such a committee is appointed, I personally believe we should insist on the majority rule, provided it represents two thirds of the members of that committee. I suggest two thirds, because if one studies all the new constitutions set up over the past century, one realizes that when decisions of importance for modern and contemporary history have to be made in any of those countries, a two thirds majority is the maximum required.
It seems, therefore, that this would be reasonable in the circumstances and would provide a flag chosen by the majority.
Mr. Speaker, what I fear most about this debate is that it will result in racial strife.
Sincere Canadians want parliament to maintain its prestige, and I feel we should co-operate in building a fine Canada where it is good to live.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the compromise idea will prevail and that the house will take a decision without further delay.
As for me, I am opposed to a referendum, as I am against a general election on this kind of issue. I believe that both could result in a division within the country and could cause wrongs that would last much too long.
Undoubtedly, the flag debate has had interesting aspects, but I think that in the interest of national unity, it is time to stop paying lip service to that unity and start working towards it; let us give the country an essentially Canadian flag which will be respected from coast to coast.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I was not supposed to speak this afternoon, but following the speeches which have just been delivered I feel that we will reach an agreement. If everyone cooperates and refrains from playing on emotions, I think that we will reach the agreement so ardently desired by the Canadian people.
I do not wish to extend the debate further, but I simply want to add a few words, so that we may bring to an end that marathon

Canadian Flag
debate which we have been patiently following for more than 20 days.
During the past week especially, our party has been trying by every possible means to work out an agreement. Even yesterday, we came within a hair's breadth of succeeding. However, if that has led to the suggestions made today or the agreement which we hope will soon be reached, our efforts will not have been in vain.
Mr. Speaker, we are confronted today with a contest that I would not qualify as national, but as a clash between two parties, perhaps well intended, but which are certainly too much taken by the ambition to win in turn some honours.
First of all the government presented us with a three maple leaf flag design. Everyone admits even today, even the hon. members on the government side, that if the government had handled the matter differently, if it had moved a motion to set up a committee for consideration of a flag design which would have received the approval of this parliament as a whole, the design presented then would have been undoubtedly more national in character than the one we now have before us.
Therefore, I blame a little the Liberal government which probably thought it was doing the right thing but certainly blundered in introducing a flag design the way it did. Later the government went back on its decision and rectified a little its mistake by making concessions.
Here I must commend the government for its broadmindedness when it was willing to recognize its past mistakes and to suggest to the house the establishment of a committee and a free vote on this flag business; I think those were the two stumbling blocks in the presentation of its flag.
I say that it was really accused, these days, of having introduced a Liberal flag. After all, it has almost become the general idea in the opposition in this parliament that the way of introducing it reflects too much the partisan spirit and not enough the national spirit. That is why we wish with all our hearts the national spirit to prevail in this parliament, and it is only then that we can reach a reasonable agreement.
On the other hand we note that the conservative party has reversed its policy, as was proper. Nor am I ready to blame completely the Tory party for its change of policy as a political party, two parties facing one another, one introducing its flag and the other changing its policy with another flag.

We must not forget that today, if the Conservative party just reversed their stand on the red ensign, they would not have unanimous agreement of their members any more, by the way, than the Liberals had 100 per cent agreement of their own members.


Mr. Kabel:: 99 per cent.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: We saw members of both parties speak in this house against their own leader.


Mr. Cadieux (Terrbonne):: Only one, and and that is why we say 99 per cent.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: They say there was only one, but that is without counting those who will not speak up. It is for that reason that if both old line parties had held the necessary caucus in the first place, they would have reached an agreement on some design or on some criticism and we would have probably avoided this marathon. This means that this marathon was certainly brought about by failures on both sides.
From red ensign supporters, we heard pathetic speeches. I would not call them historic speeches because for us, the red ensign has no historical character, since it is only temporary.


An hon. Member:: And besides, it is not patriotic.


Mr. Gaulhier:: The red ensign was accepted by parliament only conditionally and temporarily until there would be a really distinctive flag which would be our national flag.


Mr. Dupuis:: Hear, hear.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: When I hear the Conservatives say "We fought under that flag", I admit that they fought under the colours of that flag. But then, they must recognize that they only fought under a temporary flag.
I heard another Conservative member say: We taught our children that the red ensign is our national flag. Well, Mr. Speaker, if they did, they taught their children a lie because we in the province of Quebec taught our children the truth, namely that the red ensign, which we respect just the same, is only the temporary flag of Canada until we have our distinctive national flag. That is the truth, Mr. Speaker.
We always made it a point to teach the new generations the true meaning of our national policy. Even if it is said in this parliament that our children were taught that the red ensign is the national flag, I say and will always say that it is false, that it is a flag that was chosen to be used by our

troops on the battlefields, but it is not a national flag, only a temporary one.
I heard someone else say that the threeleaved flag was commercial in design. Since the red ensign is the flag of the British merchant marine, I wonder which of the two is more commercial. How can anyone say that one is less commercial than the other?
Mr. Speaker, I refer to those few statements made by the hon. members on both sides of the house only to show that they could not have been serious when they made such claims. I fail to understand how a Conservative, regardless of whether he is a French Canadian, an English speaking Canadian or an immigrant, could seriously seek to prove to the house that the red ensign is our national flag. No one could seriously do so.
I cannot imagine either that the Conservatives are serious when they ask for a referendum on the proposed flag. Last night, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville (Mr. Dupuis) gave us a proof that was lacking up to now. As a matter of fact, some present Conservative members have actually disavowed in 1961 what they advocate today. It means therefore that someone is playing the fool, that there are some jokers in the house. We want to put an end to this sort of thing, because I do not think any responsible member wishes to make of this house a stage for make-believe. Every Canadian feels that this monumental farce should be stopped.
It is said that the right of free speech must be respected. I agree, Mr. Speaker, but when someone has expressed his views once, even twice or three times, I feel that when he speaks for the fourth time he is abusing the right of free speech. The farmers in our ridings call that sheer foolishness and say that those who are responsible for such abuses deserve to be sent to hospital.
I think that it is time for the Liberal government to face up to its responsibilities. If we could assume the government's responsibility, we would readily do so.
It appears that the motion we intend to introduce was irregular. Now, we have to amend it before introducing it. On the other hand after consulting experienced politicians, I learned that a motion to set up a committee of the house can be introduced only by a minister, and not by a private member.
Such a motion has to be introduced by a minister and that is why I rise today to demand that the Liberal government assume its responsibilities and introduce that motion concerning the setting up of the kind of com-
Canadian Flag
mittee which was suggested yesterday, a time limit being specified for the presentation of the committee's report and for the discussion of that report.
The government may rest assured that for the sake of peace and unity in this country we will wholeheartedly support such a motion. I would even go so far as to say that if, one day, it is obliged to impose closure, we will support it in order to safeguard Canadian unity, because the more we go along the present way, the more we deepen the chasm which is dividing Canadians. We must end this division and I am sure that we shall never reach any agreement by carrying on with this marathon. As a matter of fact the events of the last few days have proved that we could go on discussing this matter for another three months without attaining any results; instead of going forward we are going backward.
We must absolutely settle this matter and the only solution, in my opinion, is the one suggested by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), speaking once more on behalf of his party, to the effect that a committee be set up to select a flag that would be approved by the majority of members. I say that the house is responsible for the choice of a distinctive national flag for Canada, and it should be done through a committee that would sit for 60 days, whose report could be discussed later for four, five or six days, that is for a determined period, when the majority could vote at last, once and for all on the distinctive national flag issue. I say a distinctive national flag, not two and not the red ensign, because I do not see why Canada, like all the other countries of the commonwealth, would not have her own distinctive national flag in the British commonwealth of nations. Can you find any other country of the commonwealth who needs two flags to indicate its participation in the commonwealth? If we are unable to fly our distinctive national flag, then we are not worthy of a flag, we do not deserve the name of Canadian nation.
We support the idea of a flag being chosen by a vote taken after six days of discussion on the report made to the house by a committee established for that purpose. I ask the ministers to introduce this motion this afternoon if possible or tomorrow at the latest so that we can put an end to this stupid marathon.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker,
I did not really intend to take part in the debate, as I wanted, if possible, to avoid

Canadian Flag
delaying the enactment of legislation on the national flag. But, 25 years ago this year, under circumstances similar to those we have here today and just a month before the arrival of Their Majesties King George VI and Queen Elizabeth at the Toronto legislature, I had the opportunity, as a French Canadian representative to rise on a motion to present Their Majesties with an address engraved on metal. At that time, after having heard various members who preceded me speak of the importance of making our Canadian children realize the significance of the British empire, and of our attachment to the commonwealth, I could not but remark that I very much deplored the fact that, in our Canadian schools we did not try to teach our children the true history of Canada, but rather the history of the British empire and that the true history of Canada should be based on the achievement of our forefathers, and the work accomplished by our fathers and grandfathers.
I added that one of the most important deficiencies on the occasion of the visit of Their Majesties was due to the fact that they would be welcomed in this country under various flags, as Canada did not have a distinctive national one. I mentioned that in the maritime provinces, the Scottish flag would be flown and in Quebec the tricolour as there was no provincial flag at the time, while the union jack would be hoisted in Ontario and, in the western provinces, probably the red ensign. I, incidentally, deplored the fact that, just the year before the Canadian scouts attending a jamboree in England were the only troops without a flag, some of them having adopted the union jack, while others were flying the red ensign. And, I defy the Conservatives to deny this statement.
I deplored those facts, adding that I was not making a speech on the flag with a view to the immediate adoption of a national flag, but that I wanted to express my views and launch the idea, so that I might, if the Lord does grant me a few more years, see a really distinctive flag being chosen for Canada.
Following that speech in the house, I received hundreds of letters from The Native Sons of Canada, an organization that is probably known to all members of the house. In these letters, coming from everywhere, from Halifax to Vancouver, I was asked to give a series of lectures on a national flag. I gave to all those letters the same answer, that is that I had not raised the question in view of the immediate adoption of a flag,

but mainly to give rise to an idea in the public mind so that some day, we could have a really distinctive national flag.
This afternoon, the hon. member for Three Rivers was extraordinarily outspoken, in my opinion. I gather that for a member of parliament who has occupied several positions in his party it must be quite a performance to have to state in the house that he deplores the stand taken by the majority of his party's members. Therefore, I congratulate him for the courage he has shown.
I congratulate also the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) for the speech he made a while ago and more particularly for his remarks on the position of his leader with regard to the flag issue.
Mr. Speaker, I wish with heart and hand the right hon. Leader of the Opposition would study seriously the situation in which he puts his party at the present time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would you congratulate the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan)?
Mi. Habel: In answer to that question I would say that even in the best of families there are black sheep.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: He has a right to his opinion and he is just as stubborn as you are.

I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition should realize that there is a limit to compromise. If, on the one hand, the Prime Minister has shown some good will in already accepting a compromise, the Leader of the Opposition ought to understand that he too is under some obligation to this country and that he is duty bound to promote national unity.
As the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) so aptly put it, let us stop referring to national unity while undermining it with fiery speeches.
Let us proceed with a serious examination of the flag issue and allow the elected representatives of the people to vote, so that this question, like the other matters concerning the Canadian people, can be settled by a majority vote in this house.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: A great deal has been said about this flag issue. I am one of those who have said a few words. I could point out to you, Mr. Speaker, as I did

earlier in this debate, that we need only look under our desks to see the amount of literature, the number of words, the number of pages of words spoken on this subject.
As members of the official opposition we have been criticized both here in the house, and, I will admit it frankly, in other places for the attitude we have taken. We have sat in our seats and listened to the debate. We have listened to speeches made in other quarters of the house-speeches made by members opposite, by the leaders of other parties, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and by other members of the government.
Only yesterday we listened to certain arguments put forward by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), who is very seldom in his seat. Today as usual he is not in his seat. The hon. member took up a great deal of the time of this house in speaking in particular about absenteeism in reference to this debate. An hon. member who speaks about other members being absent should certainly have something to back up what he says. The hon. member for Villeneuve put this forward in the form of a challenge, and in return I would like to challenge him: If he wants to rise in his place as a member of this house and criticize other members for not being here, certainly he should be present himself at times. I could be a little more personal in this regard, Mr. Speaker, but I realize that members of this house should not adopt that attitude.
The hon. member to whom I have referred yesterday said something to the effect that French Canadians will not swallow this sort of thing. He also mentioned that a person in a particular firm in my constituency of Lethbridge indicated his preference for a certain design of flag. This person also had something to say on whether or not there should be a plebiscite, but I will not go into that matter because I realize the question has yet to be settled.
I would remind the hon. member for Villeneuve that much earlier in this debate, on one of the days when he was not present, I reminded the house that in my constituency there were many more than just 1 per cent in favour of the particular design that is before the house in the resolution put forward by the government. As a matter of fact, I pointed out that according to my information, correspondence I have received, and the newspaper polls, 8 per cent of the people in my constituency were in favour of the particular design the government has brought forth in their resolution. I would repeat, not just
Canadian Flag
1 per cent but 8 per cent of a great number of people. I also pointed out that there were more people in favour of a design containing a single maple leaf. I even mentioned the percentage, which was 16 per cent. That is twice as many people as are in favour of the design proposed by the government. Mr. Speaker, we have listened to an hon. member of this house emphasizing the absenteeism of members. I would like to repeat, by way of emphasis, that those people who speak about absenteeism should be here more often. As I mentioned earlier, we have also listened to the leaders of and spokesmen for the different parties in this house. They have spoken with complete sincerity with regard to flag designs, and so on. I heard an hon. member the other day-I think it was the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), who is not in his seat at the moment either-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is at the thinkers conference.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Well, wherever and however, he is not in his seat at the moment. If my memory is correct, that hon. member said the Canadian ensign only flew at headquarters level. According to the information I have, the Canadian ensign flew at every victory on the field, as well as at defeats; it was not just flown at headquarters. I could be wrong, Mr. Speaker, but this is the fact according to my information.


Mr. Byrne:: Hon. George Hees could not then have been at any battles.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I hear an hon. member opposite interjecting. I would be glad to resume my seat if he would get on his feet and repeat his interjection.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I simply said that Hon. George Hees could not have been at any battles, because he said he did not see the red ensign during all his years overseas.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I am very glad that the hon. member has made this interjection, or asked this question, or whatever it is. According to my information, what I have said is correct. If you delve a little more deeply into history, and in particular the history of Hon. George Hees, you will find that although he may not have seen the ensign, it was there. And he does not have to apologize for his actions. I could produce many people, affidavits and letters with regard to the actions of Hon. George Hees overseas. Many, many of them were very happy to have that

Canadian Flag
kind of man to lead them back when they were pinned down without an officer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: And it was on a voluntary basis. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, if you want to look through history you will find that the ensign was flying at that battle, on the field.
A great deal has been said about the recognition of Canada's flag, whether it is appropriate, whether it is legal, and all sorts of things. In this connection I should like to relate a personal experience. I was walking in front of the west block a week ago, and beside me was an American tourist. We saw the flags of the commonwealth flying in front of that building. The American tourist had no trouble recognizing Canada's flag; he was proud of it and said, "We recognize it readily and easily, and we are proud to have you as a neighbour".
I have spoken previously in this debate but I do not apologize at all for that, Mr. Speaker. I am quite proud to be a member of the Conservative party, the official opposition in this house, that is responsible for this issue being debated at the moment. We have been criticized a great deal in this connection, particularly in the house; nevertheless the attitude and the approach of this party in the debate has been to discuss certain designs and ways and means of bringing about a distinctive Canadian flag. As I said earlier, I am proud to be a member of the party which is really responsible for bringing this debate before the house and to this point today.
I should like to put on record, if I may, some words which were uttered on January 23, 1961, page 1318 of Hansard, by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner). Much has been said about this, and indeed said only yesterday by a minister of the crown, a member of the government who, I am sorry to say, is not in his place at the moment. On this occasion the hon. member for Acadia referred to this question:
Are you in favour of a truly distinctive Canadian flag? That is the first question that should be answered. If the answer is overwhelmingly in the affirmative then the government in power should have the courage to decide on a truly distinctive flag. It could establish a committee such as the one that met in 1945-46, if it wishes. I am convinced that those who expressed themselves in the census as wanting a flag would accept the design on which the government of the day decided.
That brings up another point, Mr. Speaker, although I think the house is already aware of it. Hon. members are realizing, and have done over the last few days, that the flag design proposed by the government was not

considered by the government. I am beginning to wonder whether the government had an opportunity even to discuss this particular design. I am beginning to wonder whether the government-and by the government I mean the cabinet-did have such an opportunity. I am also wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether this design was presented to the government, or if you wish the cabinet, in the same way as it might have been presented to the caucus of the government party and in the same way as it was presented to this House of Commons-"This is it; take it or leave it".


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It was not, for one thing.


Mr. Winkler:: No, it was not presented; that is correct. That is what the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) said.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Well, he does not know what he is talking about.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I did not say that it was or that it was not. I only said I was beginning to wonder. As I said earlier, I am very proud to speak today as a member of the party which has brought the debate to this point, but all I said was that I was beginning to wonder.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Then stop wondering, because it had been discussed in caucus many times.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I would be glad to have any information which is available, and I will gladly give up part of my time if the hon. member wants to get up and explain-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You might as well; you are not saying anything.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: -and to put his remarks on record.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: They are on record.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Would the hon. member like to do that?


Eric Alfred Winkler: He is afraid to.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: My remarks are on record.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Well, I hope your remarks are on record. I am not trying to promote any sort of controversy; I am merely saying what is sincerely and honestly in my mind, and I have said that I am wondering about certain matters. Furthermore I am wondering whether there was not a deal between the Prime Minister of Canada and the prime minister of Quebec.


Mr. Moreau:: Shame.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: If the hon. member has the information I would be glad to have it. I am

saying that I am beginning to wonder, Mr. Speaker.


Maurice John Moreau: You are insinuating.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: There is no insinuation whatever. I am beginning to wonder about this, and if anyone wants to put me straight I would be glad to yield the floor and have him put the facts on record.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) has just said from his seat that the hon. member is lying. The remarks previously made by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) are in direct contradiction to what the hon. member for Kootenay East is now saying. The members on this side of the house would very much appreciate it if that hon. member would get up on his feet and put on the record the remarks he has just made from his seat.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Hear, hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis), he stated that I had inferred that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock) was lying. I did not use such a term, and I have never used such a term in the house. When the hon. member was wandering, or wondering-I do not know which was the word he used-whether this matter had been discussed in caucus, I cannot say what happened in cabinet because that is beyond my province but I can certainly tell him that this matter was discussed on several occasions in caucus before presentation.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. member's explanation that he did not say that the hon. member was lying, but if the hon. member has any contribution to make, I would appreciate it if he would get to his feet before making it, so that it can be understood by members on this side. While I am on my feet I would also ask him to consider whether or not he is now saying that he is calling the hon. member for York-Humber a liar.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Well, that does not trouble me too much. I have made a statement which is a correct statement. If it differs from the views of others then that is a matter for determination.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the actions of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) during the last few minutes have been clearly
Canadian Flag
out of order. Citation 143 of Beauchesne states:
Whilst a member is addressing the house, no one has a right to interrupt him by putting a question to him, or by making or demanding an explanation.
During the last few minutes the hon. member for Kootenay East has been trying to interrupt the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock) by asking him questions, making explanations, and so on. Under the rules of the house and under the citation to which I have just referred no member has the right to do this except with the express consent of the member who has the floor. The citation goes on:
A member will, at times, allow such interruptions through a sense of courtesy to another, but it is entirely at the option of the member in possession of the floor to give way or not to an immediate explanation.
The hon. member for Lethbridge did offer to give way to the hon. member for Kootenay East if he wanted to get on his feet and make a speech giving his views on some of the matters the hon. member for Lethbridge was discussing. I noticed very clearly that the member for Kootenay East did not accept that offer, and therefore I think he ought to abide by these rules and allow the hon. member for Lethbridge, who I think has the right to make his own speech, to continue his speech uninterrupted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think there is some merit in the point of order raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. One of the rules of this house is that an hon. member who is speaking has the right to make his remarks without interruption. Perhaps I should point out to the hon. member for Lethbridge that some of the interruptions which were made from the opposite side of the house may have been provoked by his insistance, or invitation, that someone should stand up and make a speech, and that he would then yield the floor. If the hon. member did yield the floor I would have some doubt as to whether he would again have leave to continue his speech.
Perhaps that hon. member will now continue.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much and hope that you will appreciate that I am a new member and probably overstep the rules. I should like to congratulate you for your forbearance, and will make a sincere attempt to comply with your ruling. What I said earlier was said sincerely and

Canadian Flag
with the serious hope that I will be corrected when I need correction.
I should like to read into the record at this time a letter I received only today from an individual who I am sure is not particularly a supporter of mine. This is a very sincere letter written by a Canadian citizen who happens to be one of my constituents. With your permission I shall read this letter into the record and then make some comment in respect of one or two points contained therein. The letter is addressed to me and commences as follows:
Dear Friend and M.P.
I appreciate your letters and information you have mailed at different times. I am willing to give you my opinion on this flag business, which is being very wrongly dealt with by both parties-
I am pleased that this individual did not identify the parties to which he referred, and on that basis perhaps I could excuse my own party, although I will not attempt to do so. The letter then continues:
-and is a disgrace to have spent this whole session the way it been. But I hope this Pearson flag will not be accepted if you have to stay there till next year. The best thing that could be done now is drop the whole flag business till some future and find out if any amount of people... approve...
Then some government that thought more of the country than they did of their policies, could appoint a committee of members from all the parties to choose a new flag. A vote on this flag business will only make more trouble. The side who loses will want to spit on the flag every time they see it. If Pearson forces his three maple leaves on this country he will not get all the blame, you who allow it to happen will get your share of it. A vote on the question will be as bad as-
And the next word is not quite clear. That letter was written by a Canadian citizen in an honest attempt to criticize this house as a whole, and I think it sets out some of the thoughts of many Canadians.
In this house we have all heard a great deal of reference to this flag issue. Only a moment ago a member to my left suggested that Canadians were not doing anything about the situation. As I have said on several previous occasions-one in particular-I think Canadians are doing something about the situation. They are trying very hard to accomplish an understanding throughout this country which will lead to a distinctive Canadian flag. On an earlier occasion I put on record what I thought a distinctive Canadian flag should be. Perhaps I should repeat what I said at that time.
For a variety of worth-while reasons I think we should use the Canadian ensign as a

basic design for a new distinctive flag. Perhaps we could replace the union jack, as it appears on the present ensign, with a complete ensign of reduced size. We would then have approximately three quarters of the entire flag on which could appear a three maple leaf design, or a single maple leaf design which could be red, green or any other desirable colour. Perhaps it would be well to place a sheaf of wheat emblem, or a peace pipe emblem, on the fly of the flag, as I suggested earlier. I have repeated this suggestion, Mr. Speaker, for emphasis.
Over a period of days, weeks, months and even years I have thought about the flag, and it is utterly inconceivable to consider completely abandoning the use of what I refer to as our heritage, as exemplified by our present and legal flag-and it is our legal flag in spite of what some people suggest. Those individuals need only refer to certain orders in council, or to certain portions of Hansard to realize that fact.
Many flag designs have been proposed, Mr. Speaker. I should like to quote from an editorial in the Toronto Telegram of Saturday, August 22 last which I must say, in all fairness and honesty, is not at all complimentary to one party or another. It reads as follows:
The Canadian ensign must not be lowered without the consent of the people.
I realize it may be a little late for this sort of talk, but perhaps not.
No decision of the House of Commons, by free vote or otherwise, to strike our historic ensign and replace it with a pennant of the Prime Minister's choosing can be construed as expressing the consensus of the nation.
This brings me back to what I was saying earlier. Some members opposite took exception when I said I wondered whether the design contained in the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister was really discussed and considered by cabinet and by caucus. With all deference, I really wonder whether this took place. I have innumerable letters here-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: -that point out the fact-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton South made the assertion that I had called the hon. member for Lethbridge a liar because I said that this matter had been discussed in caucus. I have made the statement while standing in my place, that this matter

was discussed in caucus. There is no longer any reason for the hon. member for Lethbridge to say that he wonders whether it was discussed in the Liberal caucus. I have stated that to be the fact and he must accept my word.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, probably I should have made myself clearer. Again I have to apologize, because as a new member of the house I sometimes forget certain rules. I should have made it clear earlier that what I was wondering about was whether this matter was discussed by the cabinet and in caucus prior to the House of Commons being presented with the resolution. This is what I was trying to point out but possibly I did not make myself clear. The point I was trying to make was whether members of all parties in the house were confronted with this resolution in the same way as the cabinet and the Liberal caucus were. That is the only point I was trying to make, and I hope the hon. member appreciates that. I neglected to refer to the time. I was reading from an editorial in the Toronto Telegram which goes on to state:
The voice of the people can be heard, on this issue, only through a national plebiscite. None would seriously suggest that all controversial issues before parliament should be resolved by plebiscite or referendum. That is not the way our system works. A government having received its mandate pushes ahead with its legislative program and stakes its life on its success or failure. But the flag issue is different.
If I may deviate for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I agree with this kind of thinking. The government did not have a mandate to bring this particular design before parliament. I challenge the members of the government or any private member opposite to point out to me where the government had a clear mandate, let alone even an implied mandate, from the people of Canada to bring in this particular flag design.
I said earlier that I have a multitude of letters. They are not only from supporters of the party to which I belong but in many cases are from supporters of the government party and in some cases from supporters of the parties to the left. I should like to compliment them at this moment, if I may. Members of the other parties in the house as well as members of the official opposition have contributed a great deal to this debate.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is a matter of opinion.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Certainly it is a matter of opinion; it is my opinion. I was only trying to be somewhat gracious in saying that mem-
Canadian Flag
bers of every party in the house have contributed a great deal to this debate. I said earlier and I repeat by way of emphasis that I am proud to be speaking today as a member of the party that has brought the debate to this point. If it is not possible to pay a slight tribute to other parties in the house on occasion, Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from doing so in the future.
Earlier I took some exception to the remarks of a previous speaker from the party to my far left who said that nothing was being done in the country to try to solve the problem. I said earlier in the house and at great length that I thought something was being done. In particular, I referred to the fact that something was being done in the city of Lethbridge in my constituency. I asked the question whether any other city in Canada was doing the same thing. I also pointed out what the consensus was in my constituency with regard to a flag design. I referred to percentage figures. I should like to repeat what I said earlier in the house. Every two weeks during the past school summer holidays the city of Lethbridge has sent 20 high school students to Montreal and has arranged to have 20 Montreal students brought to the homes of the Lethbridge students. This exchange has been going on every two weeks all summer. My constituents have delegated me to say that they are overwhelmingly in favour of the red ensign. I would also express my opinion on certain designs that might be a compromise, but I want to challenge those who say that nothing is being done. I am particularly proud of the fact that my own city is doing something, and I doubt if there is any other city in Canada doing the same thing. This is the kind of thing that will really resolve this question, and there is more involved in this than just the flag design.
This is a question of people living together, a problem we have had since the early days of confederation. I am very proud of our confederation arrangement. It is something which is unique and something we should guard very jealously. My people in my constituency, if I have to put it that way, are working with your people and, as I have said previously, I hope when we use adjectives denoting racial origin in this house it is only in a geographical sense.
We have our differences, the same as members of any Canadian family have their differences. We have our arguments, but I have no doubt that we can work out our differences. I have always tried to defer to your rulings, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly on this occasion I

Canadian Flag
have tried to attract the attention of hon. members opposite, but I have sincerely and honestly brought these points before the house and in the summary of my speech, if it can be called that, I pointed out that I am quite sure we as Canadians will resolve the issue of a distinctive Canadian flag design.


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


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Yes.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: During the course of his speech the hon. member said he was wondering whether or not there had been some deal arranged between the Prime Minister and Premier Lesage of Quebec. Has he also been wondering whether a deal was arranged between the Prime Minister and Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia and the former prime minister of Ontario, Hon. Leslie Frost, who have both said they are in favour of a distinctive flag for Canada?


Mr. Starr:: That is too tricky.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: No prompting over there.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I said I was wondering if there had been a deal between the Prime Minister of Canada and the prime minister of Quebec. I only wonder this because there are some things which are becoming very obvious.


Mr. Lachance:: How about the question?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I asked the hon. member if he had been wondering whether these other two gentlemen ever made a deal with the Prime Minister?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: The simple answer is no, I have not been wondering about that.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I usually try to make my remarks positive, but before I start the main body of my talk I have to make some small criticism of the critics. In this flag debate hon. members, with the exception of those in the Conservative party, whenever they have intervened or interjected have made personal remarks designed to destroy the character of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). I take exception to this, and I also object to interjections from hon. members opposite. I prefer that they stand and make their speeches.
This character assassination has gone on too long, and if you look behind it you can see the reason for it is very plain. To be old fashioned about it, in other words there are forces of evil at work in the world today.

I am old fashioned enough to believe there is right and wrong in the world today and I am ready to take my stand on what I think is right.
We hear complaints on all sides that we do not have leadership in our country today. I am not going to say whether or not we do have, but I am inclined to believe that we do. I think the standard of public service in Canada today is as high as or higher than it has ever been. I for one am not satisfied to run down parliament, or run down the kind of men who come here. It is a dirty bird that dirties its own nest. I think there are in this house men of courage, men of vision and men of leadership. I am sorry if at any time they appear to be bound by party ties, and if this is so I am sure it is equally true on either side of the house, and in the smaller groups in the corner; but I say with all sincerity that there are dedicated men in all corners of the house.
Sometimes they are misled. Sometimes their theories of government and theories of political need are clouded, and I think that some intellectuals of our country are often responsible for this. I have just read a very meaningful essay by Mr. Scott Symons in Executive magazine. He is a man who is out of politics; he is in charge of the Canadian exhibition at the Toronto museum, and I commend his article to hon. members. He refers to English Canadians, and at the outset I would like to say I do not like using hyphenated words, but there are English Canadians the same as there are French Canadians. One would have hoped that over a period of 97 years we would have learned better, that we would have become simply Canadians, and as an English speaking Canadian and as one of Anglo-Saxon origin I bemoan this.
The other day I asked for co-operation and consent for our side of the picture. I begged that we do not take a revered symbol from our war memorials. Is this a rabid thing to ask on behalf of the widows and mothers of those who died voluntarily to keep our country free, those who died in the second world war which many of us have already forgotten? But when one refers to this some of our egghead gossips say, "You are trotting out the flag, trying to make yourself a war hero." Mr. Speaker, I was not a war hero. I was an observer most of the time. I spent five and a half years overseas away from my family, and most of the time I was hot fighting. I was one of those Milton spoke about when he said, "They also

serve who only stand and wait." I waited, but I was there. I also had a spot of fighting in Belgium, Holland and Germany.
I want to talk about what happened in 1940. There is something to be learned from history. In case I bore you-


An hon. Member:: You do.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: -let me say there is something to be learned from history. I am not going back to the middle ages, but to 1940. What happened in 1940? Western civilization was scared to death. The Germans had 350 divisions of well armed and well trained men. What were they addicted to?-a narrow nationalism. I hope nobody in this house is devoted to narrow nationalism, either English speaking or French. All right. In 1940 we had a pitiful little army sitting at one end of the Maginot line. The Maginot line was full of people who did not believe in France, and so France fell. Around the right end of that wall, which was only half a wall, came the panzer divisions. And what happened? The pitifully small English speaking army had to run for it. And there they were on the beaches of Dunkirk. What happened then? Yes, I am speaking about the unity of Canada, and if the hon. member does not understand that I am speaking about the unity of Canada I advise him to listen for the next 35 minutes because he may learn some small thing. I believe in the unity of Canada and volunteered, myself, to help preserve that unity; and I would do it again. I am talking about the subamendment, don't you worry. All right; I am talking about leadership, which means unity. Without leadership you have no unity. They had leadership in England in those days. They had a man, King George VI. He was not only a king; he was a real man. He was not afraid to put his Christian faith above everything else. What did he do? He called a national day of prayer; and on May 26, 1940, 365,000 men without arms or anything with which to fight back were gathered on the beaches of Dunkirk. King George put his Christian faith ahead of his royalty and begged the people of England to get down on their knees and pray. And they did; and so did I.


An hon. Member:: Were you scared?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, I was scared. But I was not so scared that I was not over there. Where was the hon. member who made that interruption from his seat?


An hon. Member:: I was there.
Canadian Flag


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Then you do not have to ask me that question; you were scared, too. I was there. We prayed; and five days later 330,000 fighting men were safe home in England.
This I call a miracle-the miracle of Dunkirk. It came about because we had leadership in England in those days and we had faith in the three Christian crosses which are embodied in our Christian flag. And when France fell, because she did not have faith in herself, where did de Gaulle go? He went to seek the protection of the British flag. Four years later he was able to mass the forces of the free world and return to help deliver France and the rest of Europe from the terror of the nazi regime. Do not call the men who went there fools and cowards. Scared, we may have been, but not cowards-


Mr. Francis:: No one has done that.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am telling you right now. You say you are as willing to meet me as I am to meet you. Would you like to look at Hansard. It is in Hansard. When I begged you to leave these symbols of our faith on our war memorials to the boys who cannot fight for themselves, what did you say? Only one replied, I admit. Is there anybody else who agrees with him? "We shall rub you off". Is this the way to answer an appeal for unity? "We shall rub you off"-would the gentleman like to get up and explain what he meant? I know who he is, and so do you, Mr. Speaker. The writers of Hansard had the decency to leave his name off the record and I will have the decency to leave his name off, now-"We shall rub you off". There is only one way to deal with that kind of talk. But is this not a chamber in which to discuss a subject of this kind like gentlemen? Would the hon. member like to stand on his feet and make his observations now? I am willing to yield the floor.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I have listened to a fair amount of this debate and I should like to know when any hon. member suggested that the men who fought and died had, somehow, done something cowardly. I do not think anybody said that.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If you were attending as you should have been, you heard those inferences. You heard the fact that the Conservative party was charged with trying to make its members out as war heroes. If you did not hear that, you were not here. It is in Hansard; you must have read it if you have done your homework. I do mine.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would the hon. member give the citation from Hansard to which he refers?

Canadian Flag


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I do not have it at hand. I have been waiting tor over six weeks-


An hon. Member:: What about the subamendment?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am talking now about unity-in Canada, and we must have it, yet there can be no unity as long as one party is pitted against the other on an issue like this. I am asking for a proper hearing and I am complaining that when I get up to make my contribution I am told I will be rubbed oft. Do members ot this house think for a moment that this man is capable of rubbing me off physically? He takes the protection of this house. We are not supposed to be school boys. I am not supposed to ask him out behind the shed. Thirty years ago I might have been that foolish, but we get nowhere by fighting. I am asking for unity and leadership. I have told a little story about King George VI. Would members opposite deny that this was a proper type of leadership, or that we did not have something to cling to and fight for? Are all symbols useless? If symbols mean nothing, why are we so anxious to change them? Why must we give up our Christian crosses? The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, (Mr. Douglas) a minister of the Christian gospel, said yesterday-


Reid Scott: What page?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Read it. He said the cross of St. George was nothing more or less than a banner for rapine, murder and piracy. That is what he said as reported at page 7737.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I will read it from Hansard. It is at page 7737:
St. George's cross was first used in the crusade when the kings, barons and knights of Christendom perpetrated murder, rapine and plunder in the name of Christianity-


Reid Scott: What is inaccurate about that?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Is this really a fair summary of the use of the cross of St. George? Would one say that any country had an unblemished record in history? No. I suppose there have been British ships which fired on people without proper warning. There was the Boston tea party. There have been many crimes perpetrated throughout history. But is it fair to take one or two crimes out of history and say: This is a summary of British history? I was about to tell you, if you would keep your mouths shut for a few minutes and listen, that there are pages in Britain's history which are noble-that there are times when under

these Christian crosses Britain lived up to its responsibilities, and lived up to them alone.
There are admirers of the great United States of America, and I am one of them. But it took them a long time to hear the bugle. In the days when England fought alone, she fought under the flag I am speaking of. All I am saying is this: Is it fair to downgrade it?
I have said before, and I say again, that I am willing to accept and will accept any flag design decided upon by a fair vote in the House of Commons, if we can get together on this issue. I beg the government to do this. I beg hon. members on that side of the house to stand up and say those symbols which we have should be torn down, if that is what they believe. You are safe over there; you can threaten to rub me out, with the protection of the house behind you.


Mr. Tardif:: It isn't that important.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Then why did you say it?


Paul Tardif: You said it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Hon. members opposite know who said it. But who cares, Mr. Speaker? I am not going to name them because this is beneath contempt. But I beg them not to use that kind of talk. They ask for co-operation and unity. Is it not unity we are trying to achieve? Is it not leadership? Are they not seized with the responsibility of showing leadership in their party and in their constituencies?
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, is Sir Wilfrid Laurier a reasonable reference? I think so. The Liberals were a great party in those days, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a statesman; he believed in the unity of Canada and he believed in that unity under the British flag. Isn't that so?


Paul Tardif: Where did he say that?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: In Hansard for 1905 at page 1423, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said haste is no virtue and he begged us to approach all problems connected with Canada, her future and unity, with kindness, forbearance, love and brotherhood. He said nothing about rubbing people out. He said, "Let us get together". This was in 1905 when he was talking about bringing into the union the new provinces being created in the Northwest Territories. They did well in 1905; they created two new provinces in the Northwest Territories. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that Saskatchewan and Alberta know nothing of this division or this talk of two races fighting each other. They know where they are, but in those

provinces we have a good many other races as well; and we get along just fine because we practise what we preach.
The criticism that has come principally from the far corner of the house has been that they are the only reasonable people, the only ones who understand the problem. I warn the Liberal party to watch them. They are more clever than you think. They pretend to co-operate with you, but what do they hope to do? They hope to take over everybody in Canada who has been brainwashed with these different forms of socialism. They think the Liberals are the ones who are softened up for this sort of thing. They are getting the help of many so-called intellectuals. They have brainwashed our people. The fact that they are sincere makes no difference; the fact that they are pitifully sincere makes no difference whatsoever, because they are getting into the warp and woof of our thinking, until now it is almost sacrilege to say that socialism is not the only hope. Whom do we get this from? We get it particularly from parsons without a pulpit. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Christian religion is the highest form of ideology that we have; it is even higher than politics. This is a standard we might all remember. That is why I mentioned King George VI. This was his standard, because he thought that to serve God was to rule, and when he did not serve God he was not fit for the throne. As far as I know, he was; and as far as I know, his daughter is.
I say to those who wish to make a republic of Canada that they would do well to remember this. Do we not need an arbitrator, a referee, in this game of politics? Do we not need an umpire in this baseball game? The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) ought to know that, because he is a baseball man. You need an umpire. Freedom wears a crown. I say to the members of the Liberal party, if you do not know anything about history, and particularly Canadian history, why not sit in this chamber and listen to the flag debate?
The fourth estate have largely abandoned their stand in this connection. They are fond of calling us Pharisees here in the pit. We also get it sometimes from some members, the defunct parsons. They are good at this sort of thing. The fourth estate include themselves, I suppose, when they say we are a bunch of hypocrites. The press love it; there is nothing they like better than talking about $18,000 a year hypocrites. But this is not true. We may have Pharisees among us, and in the press gallery there may be the odd scribe, 20220-493
Canadian Flag
in the biblical sense. There may be those who are willing to blacken white and whiten black. Let them preach to themselves. Let them write the truth up there in the press gallery.
We had a speech from the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). To me it sounded like the bare truth. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it went unchallenged. Was it beneath their contempt to challenge it? I think not. I admire the man who stands up and tells others the truth as he understands it. I say to hon. members opposite, have some party unity; stand behind your man and say, "This is where we stand, too". I know many of you would like to say that but you have not the courage to stand up and say, "We were not consulted". I am looking for leadership, because leadership brings unity. Without leadership we will not have unity. There are those in this house who say we have no leadership. What do you suppose they want, Mr. Speaker? They want nothing more than naked power. One of them would like to be Speaker; he wishes he had taken the job. One of them would like to be prime minister. Perhaps two or three would like to be prime minister. They say they would like to be prime minister and have the responsibility of uniting this country.
Our Prime Minister gave great hopes of this. Many of us who were here when he was chosen leader of the party had hopes of this leadership. We thought he might be another Sir Wilfrid Laurier and might take the reins and make clearcut, manly decisions and explain them to us in this house as though we were equals. The prime minister is supposed to be the first amongst equals, but that has all been changed since 1925. The Prime Minister of Canada has the sole power to dissolve parliament and appoint cabinet ministers. He has taken, in the name of a previous leader of that party, Mr. King, the supreme power in this case.
Some people tell us that what we want is good, strong leadership. This is so, Mr. Speaker; but we need good, strong leadership from a man with a conscience, a man who has courage. I want the Prime Minister to share with us this superior knowledge that he has. I represent 65,000 Canadian people, and it is my right to have questions answered in the house. I do not have my questions answered. They say to me back home, "What is the matter? Why can't you get your questions answered. What is the price of wheat going to be? What is going to be done about hog support prices?" But to this government these

Canadian Flag
are things that do not count. They say we are only farmers. Now they will not even call us farmers, because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) is ready to call us grocery producers, manufacturers of vitamin pills. The attitude is, "We can ignore them; they are not farmers any more". We need the kind of leadership given by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was a great Canadian. He built Canada solidly and soundly. This is the kind of leadership we need from the prime minister of our country, whether he is a Liberal, Conservative, or whether, heaven forbid, he is a socialist, labour leader or whatever they are called. We want a prime minister who will discuss these policies with the rest of us in this house.
When I hear the hon. member for York-Humber say he was not consulted, I believe him. It has never been denied and I believe him. I believe him with all my heart. Here was a one-man truth squad. He had the courage to stand up and say: "Let the rest say what they like but I am going to tell the truth. I will put my political reputation on the line and stand the risk of being called a liar. But I am not a liar; I have told the truth". As I say, I believe him. It is this sort of man whom I would be proud to serve. One might even be tempted to join the Liberal party if there were 100 others like him. I would be proud to let him sit next to me any time, because he tells the truth, which is 90 per cent of being a good member in this house. If people cannot trust your word, then as far as I am concerned it is no use your coming here. A lie is a lie no matter how it is told. But if you tell a lie, whether it be a careless lie or any other kind of lie, at least have the moral decency to admit it. Have the courage to say that you must be wrong, or that you forgot, or that you were not in charge of the facts, and then start again. I believe in reform.
I should like to see the Liberal party as it was in the days of Laurier, when that party gave the country the leadership it needed. I do not like to see the Liberal party relying on the shaky support of the socialists, because the whole socialist philosophy is based on a false premise. They pretend that man needs no spiritual leadership. They believe that man in his own native state is some lovely co-operative creature. But I ask hon. members, what has been their experience of this in life? Is that true, or does a man need training and standards? Does he not need to stick to the rules which his father and mother taught him, to read history and to learn that the path to destruction is the path of hatred and non-

co-operation? That is the cause of all misery in the world, of all hunger and of all war. Our unemployed parsons get up and talk about the love of man. But how about honouring thy father and thy mother? How about honouring the standards of our parents?
I do not say to the French speaking people of this country that they should abandon everything they believe in. I say, stand up and be proud of them, and I will be proud of you. I am proud of the great French tradition which we have. I am proud of those who fought with us to hold off the Americans and to keep this country a free country of our own. I am proud of those men who went to western Canada in their canoes and who carved out a new country. I am proud of those who set up the two new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and who told the people there to try and get along together. I remember the positive things which were done, and I say we should forget this empty, petty fighting. If I am doing any empty, petty fighting I ask hon. members to challenge me by standing on their feet. They do not have to do this today; take Hansard tomorrow and read it. If they can find one word in Hansard which can be regarded as intolerance, if there is anything but gratitude for the great cooperation of the province of Quebec, tell me. I should know whether or not French Canadians are good people, because the Van Doos were in our division and I would say that they are the finest troops in the world. And in case hon. members think I am narrow about this matter, let me say that I am proud of our Governor General, Canada's greatest living soldier. I am sincerely interested in their happiness, believe me, and I hope that some day they will have the courage to stand on their feet and offer me the same co-operation and show the same respect for the traditions of my people; the same respect for my small contribution to our country's safety and present welfare. I repeat once more, whenever I speak one word against la belle province, throw it down my throat.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, I am making a pitiful attempt to learn the French language, and I will continue to do so. I do this not as a sop to Quebec but because I admire the French language. Some of the greatest poetry and philosophy has been written in that language. I favour anything which will keep French Canadians in our country. I also favour a democratic method of getting unity, which is this: Do not hold a gun to our heads. Offer us a chance to meet you on equal ground. Let us talk it

over. Let us have a parley. There is a story of the great northwest which might help to break some of the ice here. The Idaho Kid came up to Saskatchewan. He crossed over the border and Sergeant Kelly of the mounted police was sitting in a hotel. The Idaho Kid walked up to Sergeant Kelly and said: "Are you Sergeant Kelly?". Sergeant Kelly said yes. So the Idaho Kid said: "I have always wanted to shoot a mounted policeman". Then Kelly said: "Take that .45 out of my face or I'll bite the end off it", and he stood up and arrested him.
I say you will never get anywhere if you hold any kind of gun at the head of a Canadian, whether be he French Canadian, English Canadian, Ukrainian Canadian or just a straight Canadian, which I hope we all are. Do not try to bully him, because he does not bully easily. Treat him like a gentleman. Bring him into the picture. This is the place we are supposed to discuss things and make suggestions-not give ultimatums. No ultimatum ever put on the floor of this house will be received by this party. At this point I will quote Churchill, who said never, never, never give up your principles; if you are right, stick to them. If you believe in parleys instead of the "or else" approach, if you believe in co-operation and collaboration, not force, stick to your belief. He did, and if he had not, I do not know where we would be today. That is leadership. That is the kind of leadership we want.
The Germans believed in force, although I sincerely hope that today they have changed their minds. During the last war they sent out their battleship Deutschland on the north Atlantic, and that vessel came upon a little convoy of merchant ships. The Deutschland thought it was going to have a field day. But there was a captain on board a British merchant ship who thought otherwise. He turned out of the convoy and steered straight at the Deutschland, and the Deutschland spent all her time firing on this boat so that the others were able to get away. This captain did not like the "or else" ultimatum. Then there was the battle of the river Plate. The battleship Graf Spee was discovered there by three little boats; and what happened? With co-operation, skill, guts and bravery these three little boats made her scuttle herself; she could not take it. These are events which I cannot help but admire. I am sorry, but I am not ready to throw up my traditions. I think such events as this are admired by the whole world, certainly by the free world.
20220-493J
Canadian Flag
I ask these hon. members for co-operation, and I say this: To have unity in Canada they must not be led down the garden path by the people who want to seize their power. The New Democratic party know they cannot beat us, but they know they can beat them because they do not know where they are going.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We know where we are going, and we are going to go there. We are going ahead toward a bigger and better united Canada, and we appeal to you people to come with us, instead of fooling around with these ideas of socialism and communism fed into you through the back door.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Look out. I appreciate the groans, because they do not think there is any danger in this at all.


An hon. Member:: What about the C.C.F.?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The C.C.F. lacked the courage to make up their minds. But their leader has his mind made up and he will take the support which would normally come to the Liberal party, being that party of the little people. Do you remember the little people, Mr. Speaker? If you are looking after the little people I suggest you consider the wages being paid to some of the people working on this hill, and rectify that situation.
Perhaps you should give some consideration to the situation in which our native people find themselves. How far have they progressed during these 97 years of progress? What do you intend to do to help them? We gave them the right to vote in an attempt to give them self-confidence, and the self-confidence of these people must be attained before they can become good citizens. You are now attempting to take away their flag. What confidence will they have in politicians, or do you think they look at all for spiritual leadership from the British crown? I may be wrong, and you can certainly find out by talking with these people, but my understanding is that they want this treaty with the Queen to last for as long as the sun shines and the waters run. I do not think they will approve of politicians who attempt to change that treaty. What are you going to do after you remove that which is the Queen's flag in the eyes of these people?
Can you honestly suggest that you desire to retain our overseas associations; and if you do not, why are you not honest and say so? If you desire to form a republican party

Canadian Flag
I am sure some citizens in Canada will support you. If you agree with that idea you should have the courage to stand up for it. We are now experiencing an evolutionary state and indicating our belief in the advancement of political science. Where do you honestly stand in this regard?
I stand behind British tradition under the British crown. Everyone is aware that the British crown has no physical force, that it is a rubber stamp for our government; but there is a principle of fair play and justice involved. Governments quail before these standards if they are well informed, and I suggest that we take a serious look at our problems. We should seriously consider our present symbols of tradition.
I am sure some members at least on this side of the house honour the fatherland of their parents in the same way I expect hon. members opposite honour their parents' fatherland. I have never pretended that there are not basically two origins of Canadian people, and I respect both.
Perhaps if we could turn back the pages of time and start again, a completely new flag would be acceptable. I can envisage one suggestion that might be acceptable if we could go back in time. Perhaps the union jack quartered with the lily banner of France, following the lines of heraldry, would be acceptable as representing racial origin. I do not think we can go back in time and forget tradition. Certainly there is no indication of that in the tenor of this debate to date.
When members on this side of the house speak on this flag issue they do not receive the kind of encouragement I would expect from individuals who are attempting to take part in the debate in a spirit of conciliation. I agree with the principle of equal rights, but one question in this regard has never been answered: Why must we desert that which we believe in; why should there be a oneway deal?
I do not see anything in those traditions I revere which is divisive. I would be the first individual in this house to suggest that Canada is a great sovereign nation, because we are in fact a sovereign nation. The Queen does nothing more than place a legal stamp of approval on that which we wish to do. Whatever we propose she accepts. What more can we ask? We certainly need a referee to rule in respect of problems between our two originating peoples, who have not yet reached a mutual understanding in the way that Laurier envisaged. Sir Wilfrid Laurier admitted, as I think we must, that there are

troubles and difficulties between our peoples. If we continue to pretend, as do our socialist friends, that we are loving brothers together, I do not think we will find a way out of our difficulty. The socialists believe that all we have to do to settle the difficulties is dissolve the two old parties. They think everyone would then be happy. I am surprised that the members on the other side of the house are not aware of that fact. Time and time again members of the small parties to my left have castigated our leaders.
I hope you will forgive me for not knowing all the well known quotations of Woods-worth, but he said in the 1930's that the Liberals say terrible things about the Conservatives, the Conservatives say terrible things about the Liberals, and we socialists agree with both sides, that neither of them is any good. Lo and behold, some of the intellectualists in this country have taken up that hue and cry. That cry has been taken up as well by certain members of the press and has become Canada's national amusement, second only to Beatlemania. We criticize your leader in exactly the same terms you use to criticize our leader. I suggest as a warning that we are playing into the hands of those little groups down to my left in the corner who wish to seize power.
Our parliamentary system was set up on the premise that we are all gentlemen and would attempt to settle our disagreements by consultation and negotiation. I suggest that when we rise in our places to curse each other we are playing into the hands of those small groups. If we play the parliamentary game properly, and I use that term in its proper sense, we would have little difficulty solving our problems.
I think there should be a general reformation so that some members of this house have liberal feelings, while others approach things conservatively. The Liberals now suggest that we make haste hastily, while the historic approach of the Conservative party has been, let us make haste slowly. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, let us be careful, because haste in itself is not good. I should like to know why there is a need for haste today in respect of this flag issue. Why must we settle the issue now in view of our past 97 years of existence without a distinctive flag? We have used the British crown as a symbol of tradition. I am not suggesting that it is universally popular or acceptable. Very few people refer to the British crown tradition as a basis of argument. Certainly that argument is not possible

when we use it, and I imagine less popular when you use it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must advise the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in taking part today in this debate I should like to make reference to certain statements made in recent days, and call attention particularly to the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), as they appear at page 7643 of Hansard. That hon. member indicated his sincere belief that the government had made some concessions in respect of a free vote. He has apparently been taken in. I did not realize he was the gullible type. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has hoodwinked him by suggesting there would be a free vote and that there would not be an election as a result of the outcome of that vote.
Mr. Speaker, I should like also to refer to the acceptance of the free vote suggestion by the leader of the New Democratic party. His remarks are recorded at page 7739 of Hansard. That hon. gentleman said:
I readily acknowledge to the Prime Minister that the government has made the major concessions, and almost the only concessions that have been made on this issue. The government has agreed to a free vote, so that an election is not hanging on the outcome.
Those two gentlemen are men of considerable experience in this house, and I should have thought they would be able to interpret the offer made by the Prime Minister with greater acumen. I ask them to qualify their belief in respect of that offer after considering the attitude taken by members on both sides of this house. In support of my feeling in this regard I refer to the whip of the Liberal party, who has concerned himself greatly with pairs. He is concerned about the absence from the house possibly for very good reasons, of members of his own party, and has put forth great efforts to cover them with pairs from this side of the house, whether from the Conservative party or some other group in the house. If the leader of the New Democratic party and the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) really believe that such a thing as a free vote will take place on this matter, why then does the Liberal whip concern himself with pairs? It is very obvious that in a vote considered to be free the necessity for pairs goes out the window. So the idea of a free vote promoted by the Prime Minister has been denied by his own party whip in seeking pairi, and I
Canadian Flag
would hope that the leader of the N.D.P. and the hon. member for Port Arthur would be able to see the situation before us now more clearly.
As found on page 7739 of Hansard, the leader of the New Democratic party made something else quite clear in his speech. My interpretation of his remarks indicates to me, and I am quite sure would indicate to all members of the house upon examination, that the members of that party, since he is speaking for them as their leader, are obviously against the new flag that has been presented to the house. As I understand the situation, they have prepared an amendment embodying a flag that they think will unite Canada. However, I should like to read into the record one very worthwhile contribution that the leader of that party made to the debate yesterday in order to substantiate my argument at this time. As found on the page to which I have referred, he said:
I think we have to begin by remembering that dealing with a flag issue is not the same as dealing with a legislative matter. If this was a matter of some important legislative significance, there are parliamentary means of bringing the matter to a decision. In respect of this question, even if we could force a decision it would be a Pyrrhic decision. A flag adopted by Canada should represent the consensus and should be launched with the general support of the vast majority of the Canadian people. It should be an instrument for forging unity rather than creating division, and no flag will accomplish that if it is conceived in controversy and born in bitterness.
I heartily endorse this statement of the leader of the New Democratic party and I call the attention of the house to the fact that any further pushing on the part of the government to try to put their flag across is a definite contradiction of these remarks which were referred to yesterday by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) as a very good contribution to the debate. The minister can check his own words. He said he was in full support of what the leader of the New Democratic party had said. Therefore he must be in full support of the idea that for the government to push this matter any further is ridiculous because bitterness is certainly evident and has been evident in the last few days.
I should also like to refer to remarks made by the Prime Minister following the vote yesterday. As found on page 7736 of Hansard, he said:
Mr. Speaker, I can understand the right hon. gentleman's feeling of frustration, when only 44 members of his party were here: but I am at a loss to understand his irritation at being delayed from attending what he himself used to refer to

Canadian Flag
ironically as an egghead conference. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to give a ruling whether there is any question of privilege whatever involved in the point the right hon. gentleman has raised.
My objection to these remarks of the Prime Minister is that they are unfair, uncalled for and false. The Prime Minister said that only 44 members of this party were here, and again I come back to the Liberal whip's efforts to find pairs for members of his party. I would also point out that having only 85 members of his party here or, to use the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), 85 members of the group he is leading, does not constitute an attendance record about which he should brag. The Prime Minister's words were uncalled for, unfair and false. There were more than 44 Conservative members here. A considerable number of Conservatives did not vote for the simple reason that they were covering members of the Liberal party who were absent. This is an arrangement made among members. I personally had made such an arrangement. At no time did I rise and announce I was paired with such and such a member because I consider this to be a useless waste of the time of the house. If I am going to co-operate with a member I will pair with him. This is a matter between the two of us and something which we will look after ourselves. The Prime Minister's reference that there were only 44 members of this party present was not in accordance with the facts. I might also say that while I have recognized a pair during the votes that have taken place in the last week or so I have made it quite clear to the member with whom I have had this arrangement that when the house does have the opportunity to vote on the flag resolution itself I have no intention of doing anything other than to vote against it.
I should also like to refer to some other remarks made during the debate and with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I might also refer to certain rulings that have been made. On page 7540 of Hansard we find this remark by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
No one can say I did not listen intently, or with courtesy and politeness, to the right hon. gentleman when he was speaking, as did my hon. friends, and I think I might be permitted to say what X have to say without these noisy interruptions.
He went on to give the house a dressing down because he considered he was being interrupted. I might also say that when I attempted to ask a question that evening the Chair ruled that fair play should be involved in the carrying on of the debate. I took it
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
from that remark that any attempt by me to ask a question of the member speaking at the time was being very unfair. I refer again to the fact that the Speaker himself said that no one had interrupted the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and I call attention again to these words of the Minister of Transport:
No one can say X did not listen intently, or with courtesy and politeness-
In that regard I would refer to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition where you will find that he was interrupted on 40 occasions, 9 of the interruptions being by the Minister of Transport. I am sorry he is not in his place. He maintains he is the most courteous gentleman in the house but he has the rudest manner of any member of the house. He maintained that he listened with courtesy when the fact is that if hon. members will check the speech of the Leader of the Opposition they will find that that very minister interrupted nine times.
I would also refer to page 7539 of Hansard where certain remarks made by the Minister of Transport are found, which I maintained at that time were in direct contradiction of the contribution made by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). Before the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) leaves the house I should like to thank her for the kind invitation she extended to me a few moments ago. I know this is not in keeping with the tenor of my other remarks but I do wish to express my appreciation to her for the invitation.
To get back to the remarks made by the Minister of Transport, which I say were in direct contradiction to those made by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), I might point out that he maintained the Prime Minister made statements on "The Nation's Business" in respect to a distinctive Canadian flag, and I might also point out that in the second last full paragraph on page 7539 he said this:
When the present Prime Minister said this in 1960, it was accepted, and that position was accepted by the Liberal party, and it was the position we took at the election of 1962. It was in our literature.
Herein lies a direct contradiction, and it is very interesting to point out that each time there seems to be a difference of opinion on the Conservative side of the house the Liberals, in their ability to put across lies and propaganda, will point the finger and say, "Ah, ah, division; another follower leaving your leader." I would call to your attention the remark made by the hon. member for

Cochrane (Mr. Habel) this afternoon, when there was a difference of opinion expressed by him with respect to the hon. member for York-Humber. Did he refer to him as a deserter of the party policy, or as deserting the ranks? No. In his opinion he was a black sheep. This is how the Liberal party refers to somebody who does not fall in line with the dictates of their leader.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right when he says I referred to a black sheep. What I said was that in a group there was always a black sheep, but I added that it was the hon. member's privilege to stand by his convictions. That is what I said, and I do not want the hon. member to change my words.


Mr. Cowan:: On a question of privilege, I would like to ask the hon. member for Cochrane if he is aware this is a free vote?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: A free vote, in my opinion, is one where the hon. member has a right to vote in the same way as hon. members opposite will have the right to vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High Park)):: The hon. member for Cochrane has explained his position, and I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South should now proceed with the rest of his remarks.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, I would like your ruling on whether or not the term black sheep is parliamentary?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High Park)):: For the benefit of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) I personally do not consider it an unparliamentary term, and I so rule.


Malcolm MacInnis: I did not quite catch your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High
Park)): I said I did not consider the reference to a black sheep was an unparliamentary term.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with that; I was taking no exception to the use of the phrase. I might also say that if the hon. member for Cochrane had a question of privilege, we all realize each and every one of us are here as individuals and we will vote according to our conscience, provided our party dictates will permit; and I point out that very recently with respect to the legislation put forward providing for the trustees I saw fit to go my own way. I am sure all members willingly would do the same, and if such were the case the outcome
Canadian Flag
of a vote on the flag, provided it were a free vote, would be anything other than what the Liberal party is planning today.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: On another question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member has a right to question our consciences. We will certainly vote according to our consciences.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I never-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High Park)):: Order. I was under the impression we were debating an amendment dealing with how the results of a plebiscite, if it were held, should be divulged. It seems to me the hon. member for Cape Breton South is straying a fairly considerable distance from that particular subject. I think the hon. member for Cochrane has a point and that there should be no reflection or imputation as to how hon. members express their opinions in regard to the matter before the house. I am speaking to the hon. member for Cape Breton South in a kindly spirit. I hope he will take it that way and will refrain from making remarks which I feel are entirely uncalled for.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. I at no time tried to question the conscience of the hon. member for Cochrane. I would only remind him that possibly he should question his own. The ruling in reference to the subamendment is quite accurate. However, I would remind each and every member of the house that if I am going to be curtailed to speak on the subamendment only, I would suggest to the house that possibly starting with the speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), and winding up as late as last evening with the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis)-


Yvon Dupuis: I talked about the referendum all the time.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on this matter I would ask the Minister without Portfolio to examine his speech and he will find it was practically all made up of quotations referring to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner).


Yvon Dupuis: About the referendum.


Malcolm MacInnis: He was quoting continually from speeches made in 1960 or 1961, prior to the flag resolution, or whatever year he chose to look up. Before the hon. member for Cochrane imagined he had a question of privilege I was pointing out that there were

Canadian Flag
several contradictions made here in the house. We have heard a good, detailed explanation by the hon. member for York-Humber as to what was the stand of the Liberal party prior to the last election in reference to a distinctive Canadian flag. This was detailed and backed up by illustrations from pamphlets which he had. I might also say here that the riflings coming from the Chair seem to be awkward to understand in that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) came into the house and he had with him a brochure dealing with different flags, and the ruling was that he was not allowed to have any such thing in the house. But the Minister without Portfolio on occasion has had what he called an authentic example of the three maple leaves on one stem, and of course he has had his bumper stickers to display. At no time did the Chair rule that the hon. member should not have these in on display, while at the same time ruling that the hon. member for Edmonton West should not have with him a pamphlet showing different flags of different nationalities.
When the hon. member for York-Humber was putting forward his argument he did it with detail and with pamphlets to support his argument. Then the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) took exception. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious someone is lying. Of course it is for us to decide, for each and every one of us to decide who was lying. All I can say is that when I am confronted with the written evidence by one member, the hon. member for York-Humber, I therefore have to accept his side of the story. The Minister of Transport was not telling the truth when he said this was carried in their campaign literature. At least he did not in any way support his argument, as did the hon. member for York-Humber. So we can understand from the arguments put forward that the Minister of Transport, representing Bona-vista-Twillingate, was entirely wrong in the -if I may use the term-accusation which was pointed towards the hon. member for York-Humber, which was done also this afternoon by the hon. member from Scarborough, and I might also say the yapper from Kootenay East who is no longer in his seat, who very seldom makes a contribution from his feet. He is probably now somewhere about the city saying what he said in the House of Commons, but he never gets on his feet and makes a contribution. He likes to sit there interjecting day after day after day, and when he is on his feet he is only reading

something passed to him from the minister's office in order to bring certain information before the house.
As I said, the hon. member for York-Humber substantiated every argument he put forward, and at no time to my knowledge did the Liberal party put before the people of Canada anything in the way of a definite decision to bring forward a distinctive Canadian flag.
Speaking of distinctive Canadian flags, the Minister without Portfolio is here. I would very much like to find out how he can qualify a statement he made last night, and how another hon. member, I think from York North, can qualify a statement he made some time ago in this debate, and how other members of the Liberal party can substantiate their arguments in respect to a distinctive Canadian flag. Should the Minister without Portfolio be wondering just what he did say last night, I call his attention to page 7762 of Hansard where he will find these words recorded in the second column:


Mr. Hales:: What about the second flag?


Yvon Dupuis: You should begin by settling the first problem. You are so mixed up with the first -we will speak about the second later.


Yvon Dupuis: That is right.


Malcolm MacInnis: The Minister without Portfolio and the hon. member for Cochrane say: "That is right". Fine. They are proposing a distinctive Canadian flag, they say. But a distinctive Canadian flag can be distinctive only as one flag; it cannot be distinctive as two. The minister is prepared to get up and talk about a second flag, and the hon. member for Cochrane says "That is right".


Yvon Dupuis: Does the hon. member wish me to answer?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High Park)):: Is the hon. member yielding the floor to the Minister without Portfolio?


Malcolm MacInnis: It is apparent that I am not. I am still on my feet.


Yvon Dupuis: If the hon. member does not want to have an answer he should not ask questions.


Malcolm MacInnis: I did not ask a question. I might possibly be prepared to yield the floor to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays). He seems to have something to say, though he says very little about agriculture. If he has something to say about the flag I would consider yielding to him for a few moments. It would only take a few moments

for him to get his views across, if he does not know any more about the flag than he does about agriculture.
Members opposite talk about a distinctive flag. But how can anybody qualify that idea by talking about a second flag? I am sorry to see the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) about to leave, because I had a question I wished to put to him. With regard to the opening remarks made on this subject by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Addison)-I do not have the words before me, but they can be checked and if anyone wishes to raise a question of privilege he can do so-I should like to repeat much the same comment. The hon. member said when he spoke on this subject, in his introductory remarks: "The first flag I intend to speak about-". Then there is a second flag. What is distinctive about proposing that there should be two flags?
How did this situation come about? Again I am sorry the Minister of Transport is not here. It is well known that the premier of Newfoundland insisted that the union jack should be included and that it should be written into the bill. Well, there was some cloak and dagger work going on in the background, and I repeat that I think the Minister of Transport had a direct hand in preparing this legislation. I think it took him about two weeks to do it, but finally he came up with the idea that there should be a two flag resolution. Again I ask the question: What can be distinctive about something which is put forward in two parts? Nothing can be distinctive as long as it is brought before the house in a two-part resolution. The second part, in my opinion, is a dubious method of trying to put it across to the premier of Newfoundland that his wishes are being met. They are not being met and the premier stands a good chance of being the victim of a complete double cross down the line.
I hope the hon. member whom I see resuming his seat is not doing so with the intention of telling the house that he hopes to support the maple leaf flag as being one distinctive flag.


Mr. Cashin:: I should like to remind the hon. member that I have already spoken on this subject, so he might refer to Hansard if he wishes to know my views.


Malcolm MacInnis: If the hon. member is so keen on putting forward the idea of a three maple leaf flag I suggest he should not overlook the opportunity of speaking a second time. It will take him a lot more speeches 20220-494
Canadian Flag
before he can convince Mr. Smallwood in Newfoundland that he is getting what he asked for. He did not get the union jack written into the legislation as he wanted, but the Minister of Transport, with some help from other quarters, put forward this dubious method of a two part resolution as a means of satisfying him.
I should like to hear from the members representing the maritime provinces. I should like to hear the members from Halifax, Anti-gonish and Yarmouth stand in their places and give unqualified support to this three maple leaf design. What the Halifax members have done so far is to offer only qualified support, after they had been given prior information with respect to what the resolution would contain. Then they made statements which were, in effect, statements of qualified support for the resolution favouring the three maple leaf flag. Let them speak. After all, they have been invited by their own leader to do so. The Prime Minister wants every member to make a contribution. I ask them now to get up and express unqualified support for this three maple leaf flag. How many of them intend to do so. The hon. member for Cochrane spoke about examining one's conscience. Let them examine their consciences and see whether they can give the Prime Minister's maple leaf design the unqualified support he is trying to infer he has received. The hon. member for York-Humber made it clear that there was division in the Liberal party. I, too, made it clear when I challenged members of the government to get up and say that they, too, gave the Prime Minister's design their unqualified support. The flag proposed by the Prime Minister does not have the unqualified support of his backbenchers. It does not even have the unqualified support of his cabinet ministers.


Yvon Dupuis: Does the hon. member want me to answer him? He was asking me to stand up and answer him. If he wants an answer, let me give it.


Malcolm MacInnis: I would very much like-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High Park)):: The hon. member for Cape Breton South has challenged a number of members of the house to get up and make statements and I think he should probably be prepared to permit them to do so, having made that challenge.


Malcolm MacInnis: I hope to be permitted to finish the remarks I was making with respect to this question. I said I challenged any

Canadian Flag
cabinet minister to get up in the house and make a statement of unqualified approval for the proposed new flag. And when we come to the minister whose views were made known directly to me, I will confront him with his remarks and back my statements with witnesses who were present when he made his views known about his feelings with regard to the three maple leaf flag.


Yvon Dupuis: Name him.


Malcolm MacInnis: I do not have to name him. He is perfectly capable of coming into the house and speaking for himself. Let this cabinet minister explain his position to the Prime Minister and to the house. To use the dignified expression of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif), let him have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and tell the house and the Prime Minister what he told me in the presence of witnesses, namely that he does not understand the choice of the three maple leaf design and that he is also-


Yvon Dupuis: Name him.


Malcolm MacInnis: Why should I?


Yvon Dupuis: Because we should like to know whom you are talking about.


Malcolm MacInnis: The Minister without Portfolio wishes to find out who in his party or in his cabinet does not favour the three maple leaf flag. I suggest he should keep his ears open. It has been made quite evident to me and other members of this party that many members on the other side of the house have found themselves in a very embarrassing position, because they freely admit that correspondence they have received from their constituents proves to them without a doubt that the three maple leaf flag does not have the support of their constituents; and with regard to those members to whom I am referring, in most cases their constituents are standing firm on behalf of the red ensign. Why are not these members coming forward and making themselves heard? Why should not the members of the Liberal party stand up, at the invitation of the Prime Minister, and make quite clear to the people of this country and the members of this house just why they support the three maple leaf flag?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Then let us have a vote.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the hon. member for Cochrane stop his yapping? I have had experience with the hon. member previously, right up in his own constituency. My experience was in sitting down as a guest in his constituency, with a vacant chair that was

left for him, and he did not show up. I have been in his riding, Mr. Speaker, and I might say that the reception I got was one the hon. member should have been there to get for himself.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: They did not elect a new member, though.


Malcolm MacInnis: Why should not these members stand up and give their reasons for supporting the three maple leaf flag? They have been invited by the Prime Minister to do so. Why should they not rise and give his design their unqualified support? I should like to hear from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). I should like to hear from the Prime Minister himself. I wonder why these hon. gentlemen permit their speeches to go out in a brochure that is spread across this country and foreign countries, because in those speeches the red ensign is designated as a distinctive Canadian flag. Speeches appear in this brochure by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of National Defence. Part of that brochure contains a card displaying the red ensign as a distinctive Canadian flag. Am I to understand that the Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister are going to withdraw their speeches from that particular brochure?
The Minister without Portfolio wants people named; he wants this, he wants that. He spent 50 minutes speaking on this subject last night. I agree that there were many interjections and interruptions, but that is usual here.


Yvon Dupuis: There were 11 interruptions from you.


Malcolm MacInnis: Seven?


Yvon Dupuis: Eleven.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then I did very well. In view of what the Minister without Portfolio was saying, he deserved 70 interruptions, not seven.


Yvon Dupuis: Eleven.


Malcolm MacInnis: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister without Portfolio does not stop embarrassing his own government he might not be a minister, even one without portfolio. He spoke on this subject last night for 50 minutes. I agree with him that there were many interruptions. I believe that my interruptions mainly consisted of points of order, and on one occasion I referred to a

ruling the Chair made and I was quickly corrected. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, one of the points of order I wanted to raise was this. I was reminded last night by the Chair that the rules do cover this question, and nobody is allowed to refer to votes. But the surprising thing is that when the ruling was put into effect last night it only followed by a few hours the Prime Minister's reference to a vote that had taken place. Nobody saw fit to rise and point out to the Prime Minister that he was breaking the rules. However, the minute somebody on this side of the house did this, it was immediately said it was against the rules. Many rules have been broken on the other side of the house. I say to the Minister without Portfolio that although he spoke for 50 minutes on this subject last night, not one word did he say in support of the three maple leaf flag, the flag of his Prime Minister. It is true that he accepted the Prime Minister's invitation to speak on this matter, but he did not put forward anything in support of the three maple leaf flag- not one word. As was mentioned in the house last night, the chief huckster of the Liberal party in this particular matter has not had one word to say in support of this flag. Having had 50 minutes in which to promote his own little enterprise, I am surprised that he did not see fit to deal with this question. Possibly there was no profit motive to move him.


An hon. Member:: You are talking about the sticker-licker.


Malcolm MacInnis: That is exactly right. He sells bumper stickers, as I understand it. There was no profit motive-


Yvon Dupuis: There should be one on your mouth.


Malcolm MacInnis: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio is selling bumper stickers at a price-


Yvon Dupuis: Do you want one for your mouth?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will you speak a little louder, Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot hear you. It is very odd, Mr. Speaker, that when there are interjections from this side of the house, the Chair is quite anxious to rise immediately at times and call us to order, as
Business of the House happened in the case of the Minister of Transport. I see that minister has arrived in the chamber, that man who tries to promote himself as the most polite and gracious member of the house. That is what he claims. He says, "I listened without interrupting". He says he is very gracious, and so on; but since he is here I would remind him that the last time he rose in the house and tried to promote himself as the Emily Post of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: -if he would look back just a few pages of Hansard prior to making that statement he would find out how mannerly he is. He is most rude. What he said in his own defence can be contradicted if one refers to Hansard a few pages earlier, where it will be seen that he interrupted the Leader of the Opposition on nine occasions, although he claimed he did not interrupt him at all.
I now return to the subject of the Minister without Portfolio. There was no profit motive involved, so during those 50 minutes he did not say a word in defence of the three maple leaf flag. Yet he sells bumper stickers, I understand, at a higher price than one would pay elsewhere. Therefore the profit motive moves the Minister without Portfolio. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this profit motive might easily rule him out of the position he now enjoys as Minister without Portfolio.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Yvon Dupuis: You said nothing intelligent in your speech.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, assuming that we go on with this debate tomorrow, may I ask the house leader what he intends to call for Friday in the way of estimates?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, with the assumption alluded to by the hon. member, on Friday we would begin by a discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, after which we would deal with the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Then if there is time left we will discuss 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.
20220-494J
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 10, 1964