1964-06-16

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with reference to the statement made in the house by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) on June 10, 1964, when he introduced a motion to refer the annual budgets and reports of the C.N.R. and T.C.A. to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. At that time the Minister of Transport said:
I can assure all hon. members.. .that any substitution of membership desired by any party will be promptly made by the whip.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in respect to the sittings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, the substitutions desired by our party have not been made, because we were informed too late that the representatives of the C.N.R. would appear this week before the standing committee.
This happens at the same time as the very important debate, mentioned yesterday by the Prime Minister, on the Canadian flag.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we feel that the Minister of Transport, as he always did in the past, should today comply once more with his statements and see to it that the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines will not sit as long as the matter of the Canadian flag will be before the house, first of all, because of the commitment he made on June 10 last, as stated on page 4142 of Hansard, right hand column.
Second, we ask that the committee should not sit this afternoon or this evening for the very important reason put forward by the Minister of Transport this morning, in the committee, when he said that he could not be present at the sittings of the committee because of the very important matter now before the House of Commons.
Third, we think that this committee will not be able to sit, not only this afternoon,
this evening and tomorrow but as long as the flag matter is being discussed, because we think this matter is very important and the Prime Minister himself saw fit to mention that it is very important and that we were living historic days in Canada.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I appeal personally to the Minister of Transport, because I know he always complied with his undertakings in the past, and I ask him to see to it that the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines does not sit during the debate on the flag.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Perhaps in the absence of the chairman of the committee I might say that I did go to the committee meeting this morning. Being rather old fashioned I thought it would be in the railway committee room, and I was late. In any event I am not a member of the committee, but by the time I got there the committee had made a decision to sit at different hours. This is a decision of the committee and is not appealable, as I understand it, to the house. I do not see how we can do anything about it unless perhaps the chairman might consider, in view of the historic importance of the proceedings this afternoon, having the committee meet at five o'clock.
I am just saying he may do that, but that would have to be arranged behind the curtains, sir. It is not the business of the house. So far as the undertaking I gave is concerned, it was with regard to substitutions. I am told the notices were sent out two days before, and I am quite sure that my hon. friend the chief whip would have made the necessary motions if he had had them in his hands.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Transport to be more explicit. Instead of saying that this can be arranged behind the curtains, if the minister took it upon himself to recommend to the committee that they avoid sitting during the flag debate, I feel that the chairman of the committee, who is a distinguished member of the Liberal party, would gladly accept his suggestion.

Banking and Commerce Committee


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt very much if this is a question of privilege, but in view of the importance attached to it by the hon. member, the short discussion we have had has not done any harm. It is up to the chairman of each committee to run his own committee and not to ask for instructions from the minister concerned. Matters are referred to the committee, and it seems to me that the committee is in charge of its own affairs.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. T. Pennell (Branl-Haldimand) presented the second and third reports of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and asked for unanimous consent to move that the third report be concurred in. [Translation]
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we are unwilling to give the unanimous consent so that the report be concurred in now. We want to have the time to see it so as to be sure that we will not be taken in again by the Minister of Transport as we were the last time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: No; 48 hours' notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there or is there not unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: There is not.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG MAINTENANCE BASE    APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to table order in council P.C. 1964/857 of June 11, appointing Mr. D. A. Thompson, Q.C., of the city of Winnipeg a commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire into and report upon problems relating to the future of the aircraft overhaul base maintained by Trans-Canada Air Lines at Winnipeg international airport, and other related matters.
I should like also, for the convenience of hon. members, to table a letter I addressed to
[Mr. Caouette.l
Mr. Thompson yesterday, the text of which was agreed upon with the government of Manitoba, setting out the scope and nature of the review.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house if he has been officially notified by the Quebec government that the provincial legislature has approved the constitutional amendment concerning the pension plan?
If so, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to adjourn the debate on the first flag resolution in order to discuss the pension legislation, or to wait until the debate on the first flag is over?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the resolution was passed last evening in the legislature in Quebec. Official notification of the action of the Quebec legislature is now in the post and I have heard about it by telephone. We will be putting a resolution forward for the order paper this afternoon which will permit discussion of the matter in this house on Thursday.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to give up definitely the resolution on the union jack so as to save the time of the House of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order. EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



CYPRUS-REPORTED CONSCRIPTION OF GREEKS INTO PERMANENT ARMY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and draw his attention to the report that the government of Cyprus is now conscripting

hundreds of Greek Cypriots in the 19 year old class for the purpose of organizing a permanent army. This has been done over the protests of both the British and Turkish governments, as well as the Turkish Cypriots.
I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any representations are being made by the Canadian government to the government of Cyprus, directly or through the United Nations, pointing out that this will have a serious effect upon the successful operation of the peace keeping force in Cyprus.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: This matter has been discussed by the United Nations and also by the Canadian high commissioner in Cyprus. However, it is not yet clear whether the act to which the hon. gentleman draws our attention will have the consequences and the implications he suggests. Some officials in the United Nations have taken the temporary view that this may be a step in the right direction. However, this remains to be seen.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: In view of the question asked by the leader of the New Democratic party and a number of disturbing reports recently over the C.B.C. and in the press concerning Cyprus, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs at an early date, perhaps this week or the beginning of next week, make an extensive statement on motions bringing members of the house up to date on the situation in Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Annapolis-Kings mentioned this very matter to me today, and he had intended asking me a question along those lines. I told him, as I will tell the hon. gentleman, that the suggestion will be carefully considered.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the secretary of state if he is now telling the house that increasing the Greek Cypriot army despite the protests of the Turkish Cypriots and the British and Turkish governments may be the right course for the Cypriot government to follow?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say what my view was. I said the view was put forward by United Nations officials that this might be an effective way of assisting to provide for control over certain elements in one of the communities, a control which is not now in existence. That is what I said. We are now examining the position to see whether this represents the view of other contingents in the
Inquiries of the Ministry United Nations force. It was not the view stated by the government of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To which elements of the population did the hon. gentleman refer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was referring to elements in the Greek community.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Since it is rumoured that Canada will renew its participation to the United Nations force in Cyprus, which will entail a supplementary expenditure of about $2 million, would the minister consider suggesting to the United Nations that this huge amount be distributed so as to help the economic conditions of the Cypriots instead of imposing this force upon them, because I believe this would pave the way for an agreement between the two communities in Cyprus?
Has the minister any comments to make on that subject?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, before the United Nations force was set up the Canadian government had made the same suggestion as advanced by the hon. member; unfortunately, it was a long range proposal and it was not considered acceptable in February.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mr. Macaluso:: My question has already been asked by the hon. member for Three Rivers.



REPORTS OF RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: My question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the present intense interest in symbols, in tolerance and in freedom, would the minister check the accuracy of yesterday's report on religious intolerance in Poland where over 2 million children are affected or involved, as contained in yesterday's edition of the Globe and Mail, page 3.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member would like to put this question on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry



STEPS TO PROMOTE INDEPENDENCE OF BALTIC STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question arises from the current interest being taken by the Soviet union in the Baltic area. Is the government using this opportunity to press for independence of the states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, while answering that question I wonder whether, with the consent of the house, I could refer to a question asked earlier by the hon. member for St. John's East, which I think is equally in order, concerning certain discrimination between children in Poland. I want to assure him that that question will be looked into. This other important matter is, of course, under continuous review.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him when he expects that the national employment service will come under the direct jurisdiction of the Department of Labour.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: It is proposed that an item will be placed before the house in the supplementary estimates which will, if approved, effect this transfer. It will be effective following that action by the house.


Michael Starr: Are any difficulties being experienced in the transfer of this service?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. There is a committee of senior civil servants under the chairmanship of Dr. George Davidson examining ways in which this separation might be effected, and this study or examination is still continuing. It is as a result of the work of this particular group that action is being taken in this way to sever the national employment service from the unemployment insurance commission.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question


to the Minister of Labour. It relates to a question asked of him a little earlier by the hon. member for Ontario regarding the transfer of the national employment service to labour department jurisdiction. If I heard the minister's reply correctly he indicated that a special vote would be introduced in this connection. I wonder whether the minister would agree that this vote could be referred to the industrial relations committee so the whole proposal could be studied in some depth by members of this house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the policy decision to make this transfer was announced in the house some months ago, and it follows from the recommendation of the Gill committee, the national employment committee and other persons interested in the effective functioning of the national employment service. Inasmuch as this vote will be dealt with in committee I think we will be able to have a pretty good discussion on its purposes at that time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am sorry but I could not hear the latter part of the minister's reply.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The point I made was that this particular item in the supplementary estimates will be discussed in the committee of supply, and that will permit of a discussion which I think will make it unnecessary to refer the matter to the industrial relations committee.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question. Would the minister not agree that some useful purpose might be served by giving members of the house the opportunity of studying in some detail the proposals as they will affect the administration and operation of the employment service throughout the country? In this manner we would have an appropriate opportunity of questioning the administrative officials as to how this will work out in its operation in various parts of the country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this is a point that I will be glad to consider. I believe that at present the actual details of such a transfer have not been fully worked out, and indeed cannot be fully worked out until it is possible to give some legislative basis for this transfer. The details are being worked out at present.



CAPE BRETON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he has had recent correspondence with the executive of the united mine workers union concerning the future of No. 18 colliery?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received a communication some days ago from the president of the united mine workers, district 26, with regard to this colliery.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary question. My question was whether the minister had answered this request from the executive.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I have been attempting to get the president of the united mine workers on the telephone at Glace Bay during the last two days. I discovered this morning that he is in Washington, but I will be communicating with him as soon as he returns.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the Pearson film. My question is not based upon the story in today's Globe and Mail on the film "Mr. Pearson" but is related to it.
In view of the grave doubts that now exist about the actual facts and the information that have been given to us by the government in so far as the government's role in this matter is concerned, as distinct from the C.B.C., is the Prime Minister prepared to offer the opportunity for a debate upon this matter or to give us a full account of the relationships of his office in this film making?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there will be an opportunity, if the hon. gentleman desires to take advantage of it, when interim supply is up for consideration in a few days.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In relation to the celebrated yet restricted film on the Prime Minister, was an oath of secrecy administered 20220-275
Inquiries of the Ministry to Richard Ballentine and his technical crew during the filming of this production prior to their being admitted to meetings of the cabinet or a committee of the cabinet?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, there was no such admission of unauthorized persons, including those mentioned by my hon. friend, to any meeting of cabinet or committee of the cabinet.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: I have another question on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. Have any other journalists or technicians been given equal privileges to view the Prime Minister in a day, or whatever it was, of his life?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that many of these questions should be put on the order paper.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State, the minister responsible to parliament for the activities of the C.B.C. With respect to the hour long documentary film "Mr. Pearson", can the minister inform the house whether the C.B.C. in its final editing found it necessary to edit out some crude and vulgar references by Mr. Gordon Robertson, Clerk of the Privy Council, with respect to the present Leader of the Opposition?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is surely one for the order paper, along with the others.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State a question about the film "Mr. Pearson". Now that we have had articles in depth about this film in the Winnipeg Fress Press of last Thursday and the Globe and Mail of today, would the Secretary of State urge upon the C.B.C. the necessity of answering the questions that have been put on the order paper by various members about the machinations surrounding this restricted film?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I have received an answer to the question put to me by the hon. member for Port Arthur on this matter, and I am informed by the C.B.C. that there is no change in the decision already reached on this subject.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder what the answer of the C.B.C. is to my simple little question. When are we going to have an answer to my question? I should like to know.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member put this question on the order paper.


An hon. Member:: It is on the order paper.


Maurice Lamontagne: I understand that an answer will be provided tomorrow.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
For two or three weeks questions have been asked here and there about the famous Pearson film now in the hands of the C.B.C. Now, some of us have seen it and others have not, but most of us have not seen it.
What is preventing the Secretary of State from inquiring exactly about the reasons why that film is not shown on T.V. in order to settle the matter? We are told day after day that it is the C.B.C. or the B.B.G. which make the decisions, while the Secretary of State is perfectly aware of what is going on. Why not show it once and for all, so that we will no longer hear about that matter in the house?


Maurice Lamontagne: The decision rests with the C.B.C. alone. The corporation has already replied twice, through me, to the requests of the hon. members.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
The minister is well aware of the fact that the C.B.C. comes under his jurisdiction and that if he makes suggestions to the B.B.G. or to the C.B.C., the corporation will pay heed to them. Under the circumstances we do not want to hear the excuse that it is up to the C.B.C. to decide and that the minister has nothing to say in that connection.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, as long as I am the minister responsible-


David Réal Caouette: Irresponsible-


Maurice Lamontagne: -to parliament for the C.B.C., I will not interfere with the programs presented by the corporation.


Léon Balcer: Could the minister tell us, in view of the criticism which seems to be aimed from all sides at this crown corporation, and because of the unceasing questions which always remain unanswered, whether the government intends to convene immediately a committee of the house to study the C.B.C. policy?


I believe such a step is called for, because of the lack of answers in the house in this regard.


Maurice Lamontagne: I think that there were explanations by the C.B.C. on various occasions. There were two press releases on the matter, and I do not see what a parliamentary investigation could possibly add.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
There is no question of a parliamentary investigation. I should like to remind the minister that the C.B.C. is responsible to parliament, and I feel that it is absolutely necessary that parliament make an inquiry so as to know the policy and the attitude of that corporation toward the Canadian public.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the Secretary of State since the C.B.C. decided not to show this film, which is their right, why was it shown to persons outside of the C.B.C.? Why was Mr. Ballentine told that the purpose in showing this film to persons outside the C.B.C. was to decide whether or not the film would be shown?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am told, Mr. Speaker, that according to the terms of the agreement between Mr. Ballentine and the C.B.C., two copies of the film were given to Mr. Ballentine. Mr. Ballentine had agreed to show these films only to special film societies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has entirely missed my point. I asked him why the film was shown by the C.B.C. to persons outside of the C.B.C. Is the minister saying now that it was shown by Mr. Ballentine? Then could I ask the minister if the disapproval of the film, which according to this report was registered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was communicated to the C.B.C.?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am not aware of this, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, shall we have the opportunity of seeing the Pearson film?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have had quite a long discussion of this matter this afternoon. I do not think it should be continued any further at this stage.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we do not want the matter to degenerate into a debate, but we would not want the minister to fail in or shirk his responsibilities. He should give a clear answer. If a group of citizens or even one person had the right to show the film, I do not see any reason why all the hon. members of the house would not be invited to see it, as well as the Canadian public. The minister should assume his responsibilities.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have no lesson to take from the hon. member for Villeneuve-


David Réal Caouette: You surely have.


Maurice Lamontagne: The film was shown by its maker who had been given copies under an agreement he had signed with the C.B.C.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the Secretary of State tell us how many times in the past the C.B.C. has refused to telecast films which it had paid for? What amount of money was wasted in that way during the last year?


Maurice Lamontagne: I do not have that information here, Mr. Speaker.
{Text]


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Is it a fact that the working prints of this film are worn out because they have been shown so many times to various people to decide whether or not we can see it?



REPORTED SMALL CANADIAN COVERAGE IN NEWS BROADCASTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, about the question the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) asked me last June 2, the C.B.C. advises as follows.
The French television network gives, every night of the week, a national news bulletin lasting approximately 13 minutes, followed by a regional news bulletin lasting approximately seven minutes.
According to an investigation made by the research department of the C.B.C. in Montreal on the 1963 news bulletins, two thirds of the news items read on the national broadcast dealt with Canadian matters and one third with international events.
20220-275i
Inquiries of the Ministry
Taking into account the regional news bulletin started in June 1963, the proportion of Canadian news reached 80 per cent during the last part of the year.
I would like to take this opportunity to reply to the question the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) asked me last June 10.
The C.B.C. advises me that, in 1963, the total amount paid in fees is made up as follows: 95 per cent to artists living in Canada and 5 per cent to artists living abroad.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would he inform the house whether his department is continuing to distribute a card game called "The Canadian maple leaf" in which the three maple leaves are referred to as jokers, and the winner of the game is the player left with the one maple leaf? Can we draw from this that there was collusion between the Liberal party and the New Democratic party before this flag debate began?


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; this is a very important point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the question is out of order there is not much more I can say.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; we are now involved in a flag debate concerning three maple leaves, and one department of the government is publishing the fact to the world that they are referred to as three Canadian jokers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will have ample opportunity, and very shortly, to put his views before the house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will debate it at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. G. L. Chatierlon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house whether the government will consider the resolution which is government order 44(B) a question of confidence in the government?


Some hon. Members:: Answer.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order.	UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the leader of the house.
Since the Leader of the Opposition did not have sufficient time last night, would the house allow the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) to finish the speech of the Leader of the Opposition?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister did not have time to complete his speech, would he allow the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) to do so?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, during the debate on the distinctive national flag, Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling which was approved by the press, as well as by all members of the house. You said, at that time, that you had studied for three or four days the matter under dispute, in order to decide whether the two projects should be divided.
This is my question to the Prime Minister. Did his advisers suggest to the Prime Minister, or is it the latter who suggested to the advisers, that you should make such a ruling? In other words, before making his statement yesterday afternoon and before you made your ruling, did the Prime Minister know what the ruling would be? I am putting this question to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am very surprised at this question, but I hasten to answer it. There was absolutely no communication between any member of this house and myself on this important question. The Clerk of this house, who is my chief adviser, and I did considerable research on the matter, but I want to assure all hon. members that there was no collaboration, no communication and, as far as I know, no leak from my office nor irom the office of the Clerk.



INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF GILL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Does the government have any intention of bringing forward amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act as a result of the Gill committee report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government with respect to this matter was put forward by the Prime Minister in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


William Heward Grafftey: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In spite of the minister's reply, could the house be given some idea of whether the government plans to bring these changes forward, as reported, and when?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the situation was set out at that time, Mr. Speaker. The timing will depend on the disposition of other parliamentary business.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoii (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of current newspaper reports that the United Nations conference on trade at Geneva has concluded with rather indecisive results, I wonder whether the minister would make an early statement on motions bringing the house up to date on the results of this conference.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking to my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and either he or I will make a report as soon as it can be put together.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition inquired about the case of a seaman, Josif Vergakis. I have looked into this case. Vergakis deserted his ship on August 26, 1963. He was

apprehended on April 28, 1964 and detained under the authority of the Immigration Act pending the holding of an immigration inquiry to determine his right to remain in Canada.
Concurrently with this action prosecution proceedings were instituted by the police authorities. He was charged with illegal entry into Canada and appeared in court on May 4, his case being remanded. The court granted his release on bail of $1,000. Notwithstanding the court's acceptance of bail, Vergakis continued to be detained for the immigration inquiry which was opened on May 6. The inquiry was immediately adjourned at the request of Vergakis' counsel, and he was released. Because of different adjournments, occasioned in part by Vergakis' refusal to answer questions, the inquiry was not completed until June 14, at which time he was ordered deported. He has entered an appeal against this order.
In the light of the deportation order and the fact that Vergakis is a deserting seaman, the special inquiry officer decided that he should be detained. The next day, an application for release having been made to the special inquiry officer by Vergakis' counsel, the detention order was withdrawn. He is free pending the outcome of his appeal and trial. The trial is scheduled to take place on June 26.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the continuing series of reports and statements in connection with the Immigration Act and the alleged denial of the rights of individuals, would the Prime Minister not consider having a committee of parliament examine the Immigration Act with a view to clearing the air in a lot of these matters?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, before considering that matter, I think it would be well to await the conclusion of the discussion which will undoubtedly be taking place on this matter on interim supply.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance but in his absence perhaps I might ask it of the Prime Minister. My question arises from a dominion bureau of statistics cost of living release of June
Inquiries of the Ministry 12 indicating that the housing index rose one half point in May over April of this year and has risen 2.3 points over one year ago. Would the Prime Minister advise the house whether this increase is considered to be caused by the increase in the sales tax on building materials? If so, what action is the government taking to counteract it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will put this question on the order paper-it does entail a good deal of research-he will get a reply from the Minister of Finance.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs I wish to direct a question of some substance to his parliamentary secretary. Does the parliamentary secretary know whether the minister intends to introduce any amendments to the Pension Act, the War Veterans' Allowance Act or any other legislation affecting veterans and their dependants during this session?


Mr. C. W. Carter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving notice of his question. I shall have to take it as notice and bring the matter to the attention of the minister on his return.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Has the government yet decided whether, and if so when, the vacancy created on the unemployment insurance commission will be filled?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no decision as yet has been taken on this appointment, but I would hope that such decision will be made within the next short while.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the Canadian Labour Congress submitted

Inquiries of the Ministry the name of Mr. Reamer for appointment to the unemployment insurance commission?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have received no official communication from the Canadian Labour Congress yet on this point, although I have had informal communications with certain officers of the congress. Until I receive a formal communication I think I ought to withhold discussion of any particular name.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the present intention of the government to ultimately follow the recommendation of the Canadian Labour Congress in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the present government on appointments of this kind involving consultation with organized labour was set out by my colleagues the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs away back in 1959 in this house, and that policy will be followed in making such appointments.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand a question in his role as chairman of the standing committee on privileges and elections. Is it a fact that as chairman he intends to move concurrence in the report he tabled yesterday, as he indicated to the committee?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Brant-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member for Port Arthur that I propose to keep the undertaking I gave to the committee, and in due course I will move concurrence in the said report.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, last week after I explained why it was decided to convene the federal-provincial ministerial conference on Indian affairs later in the year rather than in May, as had been tentatively planned, the hon. member for Northwest Territories asked me whether invitations to

participate in this conference were extended to the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The answer is no. However, the question of their attendance is still under consideration.
Also in relation to the conference, the hon. member for Churchill asked whether some of the provinces did not indicate that they were prepared to go ahead with programs needing ratification by this conference, and stated that some very important projects would be delayed six months. At the time I said that I was not aware that a delay in the conference could have such consequences. I can reaffirm this. We have no knowledge of any provincial program of special interest to Indians which requires ratification by the conference and in consequence will be delayed by the convening of the conference in October.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. What does the minister intend to do to stop the longshoremen's strike in Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would put this question on the order paper, as it probably requires a long answer. [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question is one of national urgency which affects the economy of Canada, and I would like to know what the minister intends to do to settle as soon as possible that strike which is prejudicial to the interests of the whole country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The minister is ready to answer. This is an important question.


Mr. Speaker:: Whether or not the minister is ready, I suggest that the question be put on the order paper. Perhaps at ten o'clock the hon. member-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I give the minister notice of my first question.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he make a report to the house on the situation in the harbour of Montreal and inform the house whether anything is being done to stop the longshoremen's strike which has started there and to prevent it from spreading to the harbours of Three Rivers, Quebec and Saint John?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, happily the strike is confined at present to the port of Montreal and there is no indication that it will spread to Three Rivers or Quebec. The issue in dispute really is an issue between locals of the I.L.A. and the administrators of the pension fund. Judge Lippe, who was appointed commissioner subsequent to the last strike, is now engaged in resolving these differences with respect to the operation of the pension fund, and it is hoped that this will be possible in the near future.



NORTHLAND NAVIGATION LIMITED-SIGNING OF AGREEMENT WITH S.I.U.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, some seven or eight days ago I brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour a complaint from local 400 of the brotherhood of Canadian transport and general workers in Vancouver concerning the possibility of a certain shipping company signing an agreement with the S.I.U. which the union considered most unfair to them. The minister promised to make inquiries into the matter. Has he any information to give the house with regard to this question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps a misunderstanding arose between myself and the hon. member. I thought his question had not been allowed. I shall be glad to have an answer as soon as possible.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that all the provinces have been heard from with respect to the latest version of the Canada pension plan, can the Prime Minister say when a new
Canadian Flag
resolution will be placed on the order paper regarding the plan itself or, in the meantime, when a white paper regarding the revised version of the plan will be presented to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the resolution with regard to the constitutional amendment, as I have already said, will be placed on the order paper tomorrow. We will get the white paper before hon. members just as quickly as we possibly can.



SOUTHERN ALBERTA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will he inform the house and the country what the government intends to do concerning the flood disaster areas in southern Alberta, namely Waterton lakes, Glenwood, Stand Off and Cardston?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into this matter.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker:
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.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this is a momentous and historic debate, and I trust that I and others who take part will approach it with the openmindedness and the sense of responsibility which the importance of the question deserves.
I believe that as Canada approaches its one hundredth birthday it is important that we give due consideration to the symbols of Canada's nationhood. The New Democratic party at its founding convention, held here in Ottawa in 1961, called upon the Canadian people to recognize that the time had come

Canadian Flag
to acquire the symbols of nationhood, and we set forth three important symbols; (1) a distinctive national flag (2) a national anthem and (3) a Canadian constitution domiciled in Canada and capable of being amended by Canadians.
I think it is incongruous that after 97 years Canada has not yet adopted these symbols of our national independence. In the long process of evolving from a colony to a nation Canada has achieved the realities of national independence, but we have repeatedly delayed the adoption of the symbols that would give our independence meaning in the eyes of the world.
The reason for the long delay is rooted in our history. In 1867 the British North America Act brought together the English and French people in the partnership of confederation, and since that time people from many lands and speaking many tongues have come to Canada to make this country their home. That successive governments have evaded the issue of selecting national symbols is not due to any desire on the part of the government of Great Britain to retain any of the relics of our colonial status. The delay has been due to our own inability to agree on the form these symbols should take. We, the Canadian people, can acquire these earmarks of national independence any time we want them. The only obstacle that lies in the way is our inability to agree among ourselves as to what these symbols should be and how they should be adopted. In the words of Cassius in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves.
I believe the Prime Minister is to be commended for grasping this thorny nettle that his cautious prececessors have all evaded.
Whether one agrees with the Prime Minister or not, I am sure all hon. members who listened to his address last night must have been impressed with his profound sincerity and his deep sense of conviction. There can be no doubt about the need for Canada to face up to the problem of adopting symbols that will proclaim our national independence to the world. However, I want to devote my remarks to three particular aspects of this problem; first, the government's timing in introducing this matter; second, the methods it has employed; and third, the design which the government has submitted.
First of all let me say a word about the government's timing in this matter. Why is this resolution before us at this particular

time? On June 3 the Prime Minister gave the house a long list of legislation which he contended must be dealt with before the summer recess, and in making a statement on behalf of our party at that time I agreed with it. But now the Prime Minister has introduced this controversial and emotionally charged issue that will delay action on the very legislative program which he outlined as requiring immediate attention. I wonder why the government is obstructing the action of parliament in dealing with the government's own program. That is a question that needs an answer.
The Prime Minister's answer is that he made a commitment to the people of Canada in the last general election. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that he made a lot of other commitments to the Canadian people on subjects that were even more important than the adoption of a national flag. He made commitments on questions having to do with the welfare and economic survival of the Canadian people. For instance, the Liberal party committed itself to a program to promote full employment and economic growth, but we have seen no measures calculated to deal effectively with the problem of unemployment or the lack of economic growth.
Last February we had over 600,000 unemployed in Canada. Even now in the summer months we have something over 300,000 unemployed. John E. Snyder, one of the great industrialists of the United States and head of the United States Corporation, said before a congressional committee last October that automation was eliminating 40,000 jobs a week in the United States, and a symposium held in Montreal recently made an estimate that in Canada there are somewhere between 4,000 and 4,500 jobs a week in which men are being displaced by technological equipment.
This problem of automation is a growing problem. It will be an increasing problem not only for this generation but for generations to come. Jobs for the young people who are annually entering the labour market are something about which the government and this parliament should be concerning themselves. Instead of that we are probably going to take several weeks arguing about a national flag.
The problem of poverty in this country is something which the government tends to sweep under the carpet. The other day Dr. O. J. Firestone, vice dean of social sciences at the University of Ottawa, said that one Canadian out of every five lives in a state of abject poverty. He went on to say that though

we speak a great deal about the unemployed we tend to ignore the tact that there are 3,800,000 Canadians who live constantly in poverty whether they are working or not. This is something which ought to touch the conscience of Canada, yet we are doing nothing about it.
The government speaks of commitments, but the Liberal party committed itself at the last election to provide medical care insurance under which every Canadian citizen would be entitled to have their medical bills paid if they were in excess of $25 per year. We have heard nothing about implementing this commitment. The government promised to the young people of Canada 10,000 scholarships of $1,000 each for four years. No action has been taken. Instead, the government has reduced its commitment to one of interest free student loans. But no legislation has been brought down, despite the fact that we are now in the middle of the month of June and if students are to get any benefit from this legislation it ought to be available well in advance of the opening of the university year.
During the election the government made much of the fact that it intended to set up a Canada development corporation with a development fund. The government said this was the keystone in its plan for economic development; this was the program for economic expansion; this was the program which would provide jobs and create new industries in the underdeveloped areas; this was the program which would help regain control by Canadians of the Canadian economy. Well, a resolution concerning this matter appeared on the order paper last fall. Since that time it has been dropped into the wastepaper basket of oblivion and has been heard of no more.
The government also made a commitment to the Canadian people to do something about regaining control of the Canadian economy. Most members will recall that prior to the election the Minister of Finance was cast in the role of a St. George who was going to do battle against United States control of the Canadian economy. They will remember that he wrote an article which was circulated by the millions, entitled "Buying Back the Canadian Economy". What happened?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He was unhorsed by his own colleagues.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: St. George rode forth to do battle. He made a few strokes with his sword which, though they did not wound the dragon,
Canadian Flag
succeeded in annoying him. The dragon roared in the voice of United States under secretary George S. Ball, and the Minister of Finance and the government fled the field, leaving the Americans in complete control. We contend that a Canadian flag is all very well, but that the government ought to concern itself about who owns the real estate over which the flag is going to fly. A symbol of national independence will have little meaning if in the meantime Canada has become an economic satellite of the United States. In that case, we shall be able to choose for a flag an American eagle with a beaver clutched in its claws.
During the last election the government claimed it was the only party in Canada which could make co-operative federalism work. In the space of more than a year which has elapsed since the government took office nothing fundamental has been done to close the fissures and divisions which have appeared in our federal system. A flag in itself cannot provide unity. Unity can only come about when a country has unity of purpose; when a government is prepared to tackle the social and economic problems confronting the people and unite them behind a national policy. Then a flag, which is a symbol of national unity, will have meaning.
The New Democratic party supports the idea of a distinctive national flag, but we are against the government's scale of values and its order of priority. This flag will not put food into one empty belly or provide jobs for the thousands who are out of work. It will not bring medical care to a sick child or ease the load on the poor and the afflicted. It will not supply decent housing for the aged or educational opportunities for the young. It will do nothing to give Canada social and economic independence in an era when United States corporate control is stretching its tentacles across the Canadian economy.
These are the problems which beset this nation, and so far the government's major contribution has been to take up its own time and the time of parliament with an untimely controversy over this flag issue. I think the government has put the cart before the horse. I think we ought to strengthen this country and unite it. We would then be in a position to talk more intelligently about a flag. It is my view that the whole question of a flag could have been left until we had dealt with the legislative program now before us. There

Canadian Flag
would have been plenty of time to deal with the flag resolution next fall or next winter.
I wish to say a word, too, about the government's method of introducing this measure. I recognize that this is a difficult matter to deal with. I think the government would have been well advised to select two or three designs and submit them to a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate in the hope that some measure of agreement could be reached. This might have prevented the selection of a flag from becoming a partisan issue or being involved in political diatribes. Normally, when a government is a majority government, a decision of this nature can be made by the government members, but the present government is a minority government and surely it would have made sense in this situation to have attempted to reach some all-party agreement.
I think the government further confused the matter by putting both the question of the distinctive national flag and the retention of the union jack as a symbol of our relationship to the commonwealth and our loyalty to the crown in the same resolution. I feel, Mr. Speaker, all of us are indebted to you for separating the two questions. I believe this gives every member a chance to stand up and be counted on each issue so there can be no opportunity for equivocation or misrepresentation.
It has been moved by the Conservative party that we should refer this matter to the people of Canada in a plebiscite. I am free to confess that when this was a matter of academic discussion I would have had considerable sympathy for this approach. I think now, Mr. Speaker, the time for a plebiscite is long past. Opinion in Canada has now polarized around two flag designs, the red ensign and a maple leaf design, and I do not think we would do any great service to Canada by submitting this question to a national referendum. We would in effect have a miniature general election and, as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is himself quoted as saying in a C.B.C. radio and television interview last Wednesday, "To have an election on the basis of a matter like this will divide this country as it has not been divided in the past".
I think all the arguments against having an election on such an emotionally charged issue apply equally to having a referendum at this particular stage. Anyone who witnessed the confrontation on parliament hill when the proponents of the red ensign and the proponents of the maple leaf design faced each other across a cement sidewalk, and

heard some of the comments that were made, must realize that this situation, in a more inflammatory form, would be re-enacted in a thousand communities in Canada. I think we would only inflame passions, we would only increase national disunity, and we would do a great disservice to the people of Canada by having a referendum at this time. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I am doubtful now that a referendum would settle anything. It would show us what people think in particular localities. I doubt that it would give us a consensus of national opinion. In the final analysis parliament itself would still have to deal with the matter. I think, therefore, that parliament has the responsibility to deal with it now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would have preferred that this matter be left, as I have said, until we had dealt with more important issues on the order paper. But now that the government has precipitated it into the House of Commons I say that parliament must accept its responsibility; parliament must make the decision as to what national flag this country will adopt. This is our task. I do not think we can shirk it or pass it on to anyone else.
The third thing I want to say something about, Mr. Speaker, is the actual design of the flag itself. I have a good deal of sympathy for those who advocate selecting the red ensign, with some modification, as the national flag of Canada. As one who was bom in Scotland I have a deep attachment for British traditions and British institutions, I would be very happy, personally, with a flag in which there was the union jack in one corner and the fleur-de-lis in another, thus paying tribute to the two great founding races that came together to make up the partnership of confederation. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not selecting a flag for my personal preference or for anyone else's personal preference. We are trying to select a flag that will speak for the people of Canada as a whole. We are not selecting a flag for this particular generation alone. We are seeking to select a flag design that will have meaning for our generation and for all the other generations of Canadians who will come after us.
I think we have to recognize that the maple leaf design is the flag best calculated to do that.
We must remember that there are over 5 million Canadians who are of neither British nor French origin. For them neither the union

jack nor the fleur-de-lis has the deep significance that it has for those of us who are of French or British stock. It seems to me that these people have a right to a national flag that is distinctly Canadian and that for them is meaningful and significant.


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Later, please. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there are millions of Canadians who were born in this country and who look upon Canada as their native land. This number will grow with the passing of the years. These young people have no deep feeling of attachment for the land of their forefathers; to them this land, Canada, is their native land. In the years that lie ahead they will have a struggle to retain Canada's national identity, lying as we are along the border of the United States, exposed to their movies, their magazines and their television shows. I suggest that if the young Canadians of this generation and future generations are going to retain their national identity they need a flag that speaks not of Britain nor of France, but a flag that says to them "Canada, my native land". I am supporting the maple leaf design because I believe it is the flag for the Canada of tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The New Democratic party believes, however, that a single maple leaf is to be greatly preferred over the sprig of three maple leaves proposed in the resolution. The Prime Minister has good, traditional, heraldic reasons for adopting the three maple leaf design. But in this flag issue we are breaking tradition in many respects. We are breaking a lot of heraldic rules in putting, for instance, the two blue bars on the flag- of which I approve. I think we ought not to be bound by either tradition or the advice of heraldic experts.
I think there are two very compelling reasons for using the single maple leaf rather than the design proposed by the Prime Minister. The first is the matter of identification. One of the purposes of a flag is that it can be easily identified. A person looking at our flag from some distance ought to be able instantly to recognize that flag and the country which it symbolizes. This can certainly be done much better by a single, large maple leaf standing out on a white background, with a blue bar on either side.
But I think there is a more important reason, Mr. Speaker. One of the problems of 20220-276J
Canadian Flag
Canada has been to bring together the many diverse groups which make up our population, and I think one single maple leaf would speak of national unity. There are not three Canadas; there is only one Canada, made up of two founding races, with two official languages, with two cultures, with many ethnic groups-but one country, with one purpose and one destiny. I think we need a flag which says to the world that, though we have come from many lands speaking many tongues, we are united together in common bonds of allegiance to parliamentary democracy, to social justice and to democratic institutions.
I was pleased that the Prime Minister said in the course of his address yesterday that when it came to the matter of design parliament will decide. I hope the Prime Minister will allow the members to decide in a free vote. I hope that the members will be allowed to vote according to their personal preference. I know from conversations I have had that there are members in all parts of the house, how many I do not know, who would prefer a single maple leaf. I hope that the government will make it clear to their supporters, and that all of us will make it clear in the various parties, that this is a matter of individual preference. It is not a matter of partisan politics. It is not a matter of party discipline. It is a matter of selecting what we think will best denote to the Canadian people what Canada means as it is depicted pictorially on a flag.
Before leaving the question of the single maple leaf, may I say that I would have moved an amendment to give the house an opportunity to express its opinion on a single maple leaf design, but since the official opposition have an amendment before the house it would not, of course, be possible for me to move that amendment at this time. However, later in the debate we shall certainly introduce an amendment to give the house an opportunity to say whether it would like a single maple leaf rather than the three maple leaves proposed in the resolution. I hope hon. members will give this matter some thought, and we hope that enough of them will vote for such an amendment to make it possible for us to have a flag which, in our opinion, would not only be distinctively Canadian but would be representative of the national unity which we are seeking to build in this country.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I just say a few words about the two blue bars, which have been neglected in most of the discussions.

Canadian Flag


Gordon Minto Churchill: The same as the Guatamalan flag.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think they are rooted deep in the traditions of our country. It is said that when the fathers of confederation were meeting and trying to select a motto and a title for Canada there was a good deal of discussion. It will be recalled that Sir John A. Macdonald wanted to use the term "the kingdom of Canada", and it was Sir Leonard Tilley who, on reading the 72nd psalm, found his attention arrested by verse 8, which says:
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
He came to the meeting of the fathers of confederation on that day and made the suggestion that it should be called the dominion of Canada, and that we adopt the motto "A mari usque ad mare"-"From sea to sea". The term "dominion" has been dropped, but I would like to think that the idea has not. I would like to think that the two blue bars on our flag will have a deep significance for the people of Canada. Irrespective of what our religious affiliation may be, or even if we have no religious affiliation at all, I think that all of us agree that we would like to see this a land from sea to sea where certain moral and spiritual values will be supreme; that this would be a land where the things of the mind and the spirit will have priority over mere material progress or personal acquisition. I would like to think that those two bars on the flag will tell the world that we have placed a high value on things other than mere material aggrandizement.
There is a verse in the Bible to the effect that "the measure of a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things he possesseth." I think that is not only true of individuals; it is true also of nations. I do not think that Canada's greatness in the future will depend solely upon the height of its skyscrapers, or the size of its gold reserve, or the amount of its trade balance. I think that in the final analysis Canada's true greatness will depend upon the extent to which it is concerned about protecting and advancing the rights and the opportunities of even the humblest citizen within its borders.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this debate will not be unduly prolonged and that it will not cause animosity. I think we should do all in our power to keep from setting Canadian against Canadian at a time when a spirit of unity is needed as never before in our history. I hope that we can conduct the debate on this controversial issue calmly and with-

out rancour; and when we have made a decision I hope that we in this parliament and the people of Canada from coast to coast will join together under whatever flag we choose to help build a Canada that is strong, free and united.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe).


Mr. Choqueiie:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I respect the feelings of the hon. member for Villeneuve but, last week you ordered the hon. member for St. Denis not to put up a flag in the house so that the great debate which is going on at present would not be turned into a spectacle.
Consequently, I respectfully request that you call the hon. member for Villeneuve to order and ask him to take down the flag he has on his desk, the same way you did for the hon. member for St. Denis.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for drawing this to my attention; I had not noticed it until now. Will the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) take down the piece of bunting on his desk.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the resolution under consideration has nothing to do with the flag I have before me. I brought the same flag to the house a fortnight ago, but it is not the one mentioned in this resolution.
I realize the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) just wanted to show off, as he always does both in his province and in this house in order to draw the attention of all hon. members to this flag. Therefore, I would ask you to bear with me, because I am supposed to speak after the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) and I shall deal with the resolution as it stands without referring to any others, unless I want to move an amendment to that effect, something which I shall decide then.


Mr. Speaker:: Notwithstanding the very interesting remarks, two wrongs do not make a right and if it was wrong for the hon. member for St. Denis to show a flag it is wrong for the hon. member for Villeneuve to show a flag. It is my duty as chairman and Speaker of the house to try to keep

things under control, and such incidents as this do not help the Chair. Therefore I suggest that the flag be taken down.


David Réal Caouette: When I make my speech, will you let me use this flag to explain what it means and let me show it to all the house? [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: The answer to that question is no. An opportunity has been given to display other flags on the front lawn of the parliament buildings and perhaps this could be displayed there. Once more I appeal to all hon. members. There is enough emotion generated by this type of debate and we do not need any outside assistance. Therefore I would suggest that the flag be taken down out of respect for the sensibilities of other members in the house.


David Réal Caouette: I will comply with your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to take it down, but I will take it off.


Auguste Choquette: On a question of privilege- [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
A while ago the hon. member accused me of showing off, and yet I have always been polite with him. I hope that he went further than he intended to, because I had no such intention when I raised a point of order.
I have always been very polite and I would like him to be also with all hon. members.


David Réal Caouette: I am always more polite than the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Now that both members are recorded on Hansard I think we can leave it at that.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, first of all it is my privilege to say that the views I will express, and those of other members in the Social Credit party, will be expressed on an individual basis.


David Réal Caouette: Which party?


Bert Raymond Leboe: The Social Credit party.


David Réal Caouette: Are you sure?


Bert Raymond Leboe: The views that I express will be entirely my own and certainly will not involve concurrence by any other member of this group. As found on page 4319 of Hansard for yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said:
Canadian Flag
Mr. Speaker, in taking this position 1 know there are others who are as patriotic and as Canadian as I am or can ever hope to be, who disagree honestly and deeply. I respect that kind of honest disagreement.
I hope that when I deal with some of the remarks of the Prime Minister he will regard me as one of those to whom he referred in using those words. Before I proceed with that part of my remarks I should like to refer to something said by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). He suggested that a plebiscite should not be held, and that the parties should have been brought together to discuss this matter. I wish to say that I do not believe this is a party matter in any way, shape or form. I do not think it would have been right for the parties in the house to get together behind closed doors in some smoke filled room and decide what kind of flag Canada should have. He has said that the matter has polarized itself around two designs. This again I do not believe. My correspondence tells me that there is a great deal of latitude in respect of a Canadian flag. I will deal with this matter a little later, but I think I can show there is every reason to believe that this problem can be solved very easily without taking up very much time of the house.
The hon. member also mentioned that the other ethnic groups would want a flag with nothing on it having to do with the two founding races. Here again I disagree wholeheartedly. On the basis of my contacts with the people of the country, my contacts with other members of parliament and the letters I have been receiving, it is my belief that there are just as many people in the ethnic groups who would have us retain something of the red ensign, not necessarily the whole of it, as there are people who would want a completely new Canadian flag. I fully concur in what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said in respect of the order of business. As a matter of fact, after we had discussed interim supply last Friday for five minutes I rose in my place and said that I wanted to discuss this very matter on interim supply, and if I am in the house when interim supply is called again I hope to do that very thing; so I do not need to go into the matter here.
I should like to deal very briefly with the speech made by the Prime Minister in introducing the resolution. As found on page 4308 of Hansard, the Prime Minister quoted this statement of his party's policy:
A Liberal government will establish a distinctive Canadian flag within two years of taking office.

Canadian Flag
I would call your attention to these words, Mr. Speaker, that a Liberal government will establish a distinctive Canadian flag within two years. It is my opinion that this is exactly what they are doing, and part of the machinery they are using to do this is contained in the Prime Minister's speech when he said that if parliament decides that it cannot support a government on a matter of major policy our system does provide for a referendum to the people in an election. I want to make the point very clear that 1 believe this is a part of the machinery that the government is using to carry out its commitment, which was that a Liberal government would establish a distinctive Canadian flag within two years.
In election campaigns many promises are made and many ideas are put forward as to what a government will do; but yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we were confronted with deciding on two issues in one resolution and you, Mr. Speaker, and rightly so I believe, divided the two issues so that they could be voted on separately. Compare this with the long list of election promises on election day. Are we allowed on election day to sort out the various promises of the various parties seeking election and say: I am going to put my X behind this, and I am going to eliminate this? No, we have no choice.
As a matter of fact, in the Prime Minister's speech yesterday he said that we are responsible for broad policies. The flag issue is not a broad policy. It is the narrowest of narrow policies and it is something that certainly must fall within the purview of a reference to the people in a plebiscite. The Prime Minister also had a great deal to say yesterday in his speech about the unity that this action would bring about. I agree with the editorial that appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning which said in effect that this was a very bad joke.
I do not believe that this action is going to bring unity to Canada at all. I certainly suggest to those people who believe it is going to bring unity to Canada that they travel throughout the length and breadth of this country to find out what the people are saying and thinking. By no stretch of the imagination, Mr. Speaker, is this action going to bring about unity in Canada.
There were a great many references in the speeches yesterday to symbols. We had a sort of by-play by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on this question of symbols because at one stage he told us we were going to part company with the past, and at another stage

the symbols were rooted in the past. I refer to page 4320 of Hansard where the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
In this evolution I believe that the time has now come for another change by the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag which cannot be mistaken for or confused with the emblem of any other country but Canada.
In contrast to that statement, the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 4321:
The maple leaf itself has been accepted as a Canadian symbol since long before confederation. It is deep in our history and in our traditions.
Then, on page 4323, he is reported as saying:
This resolution does indeed mark a break with the past, as every accepted stage in the evolution of men and nations must mark a break with the past.
This morning, Mr. Speaker, a cartoon came to my desk. It depicts a lady sitting at a table with a politician. She says, "Sir, this is the first opportunity I have ever had of sitting with a politician; is it true that a politician can talk out of both sides of his mouth at once?" We cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. We cannot cut the ties with the past, as the Prime Minister said, and link ourselves with the past in our minds and in our hearts. This is impossible. I say to you that the time has come when we must be sensible about this proposition and refer it to the people of Canada.
There was a reference to the maple leaves being one forty secondth part of the flag. I for one, cannot see what the size of the maple leaves on the flag has to do with what it represents. If we followed this principle, then we should have a flag about 50 by 100 flying over the parliament buildings, if the size of the flag means much. In this connection, speaking of emblems, is it not true that in Great Britain they have the lion for an emblem and in the United States they have the eagle. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) referred to the eagle clutching a beaver. Is it necessary that we have the maple leaf emblem brought into the flag at all when, according to the Prime Minister, we are going to depart from the past? Why have this long discourse about the maple leaf being rooted in the past?
I say to you that the maple leaf about which we are talking is found only in this part of eastern Canada. It is not a Canadian emblem, by any means. It has been accepted as an emblem, certainly, just as we have other

emblems. This is no reason for including it in a Canadian flag. I like the maple leaf.


An hon. Member:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Bert Raymond Leboe: Sit down; you will have all kinds of time to speak on this resolution. If we are going to have an emblem that has roots deep in the past, then certainly there is nothing more deeply rooted in Canada's past than the red ensign.
I should like to deal now with the statements of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian club. I should like to quote from page 4320 of Hansard where the Prime Minister quoted from the resolution of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce:
That the parliament of Canada formally adopt and authorize a distinctive national flag. A distinctive national flag would be a strong, unifying influence, consistent with the status of full nationhood.
I should like to refer to the other quotation which was from a resolution of the Association of Canadian Clubs:
Canadian clubs in biennial conference assembled support a Canadian flag that is simple, dignified and distinctive: and offer their services, if and when parliament has approved a Canadian flag, in promoting its acceptance throughout Canada.
In that connection, I should like to read from P.C. 5888 of 1945. I have a certified copy signed by R. B. Bryce, Clerk of the Privy Council. Before I read this, I should like to refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister in which he quoted a portion of this order in council to the effect that the red ensign may be flown from buildings owned or occupied by the federal government, within and without Canada. However, he failed to read the important part of the order in council which states:
His Excellency in council, on the same recommendation, is further pleased to declare and doth hereby declare that it shall be appropriate to fly-
Not may fly-
-it shall be appropriate to fly the Canadian red ensign within and without Canada wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
If you compare the wording of this order in council P.C. 5888 and the resolution of the Canadian clubs and the chamber of commerce you will find this order in council complies with a request for a distinctive Canadian flag, which is here referred to as the red ensign.
I believe most members of the house, as a matter of fact I think all members of the house know exactly where I stand on the issue because I circulated a 20-point state-
Canadian Flag
ment outlining my personal views. In this statement I suggested several things, and I am going to review them at this moment. First of all, I said:
The people of Canada have never been asked nor have the people said they want a new flag other than the "red ensign".
I fail to find anyone who can prove to me that the people of Canada have said so. If the people of Canada have said so, I want somebody to stand up in their place and tell me when they said so.


Gilles Grégoire: My constituency did say so.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Your constituency is a part of Canada, the same as mine. Let us have a vote on the matter and then we will know.
I continue to quote from the statement outlining my personal views:
The chief electoral officer should be notified that the opinion of the people is necessary to settle the matter and, therefore, should proceed to have a vote taken by way of a transferable ballot on which a number of choice designs, including the "red ensign", are manifest.
This is one point I should like to make in connection with the speech of the Prime Minister and also the reference by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I should like them to listen carefully to this proposal:
All votes should be sent to a central point for counting so that the place of origin of any vote cannot be determined.
There will be people who will say this cannot be done. This is what is wrong with many of our governments today; they say this or that cannot be done. I am telling you it can be done and it should be done. The number of votes in each poll would be recorded so we would know how many votes were cast, but we would never know who cast a vote for what. The chief electoral officer's report should be submitted to the permanent body of parliament, the Senate of Canada, for appropriate action.
I believe this is essential if we are going to have a permanent flag because surely, if the government of the day can bring in a flag by the method we are using today, then another government within two or three years can do exactly the same thing and we will have a flag for every political party that becomes the government of Canada. I believe this should be prevented at all costs, but the action we are taking and what we are proceeding to do will certainly bring about such a situation.
It is all right for hon. members to say, "Oh, they will never do it." This is the type of thing that traps old people at 45, because

Canadian Flag
they think they have too much common sense; but then they get carried away. It we find ourselves in a position where another government can bring in another flag, then who will be the laughingstock of the nations of the world?
The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 4319 of yesterday's Hansard:
It will not be the flag of a person or a party; it will be the flag of the people of Canada-
I ask him for how long-till we get another prime minister? In my opinion this is certainly not the way to do it.
The Prime Minister referred to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) and quoted him in connection with the flag's sending a message. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, the flag does not send any other message than the image we create here in Canada. I do not care what flag hangs on the pole, the message received by the people who see that flag will be according to the image we ourselves create. It is not the flag that makes Canada; it is Canada makes the flag. Let no one say a flag is going to make a nation; it is a nation that makes a flag.
I dealt with the order in council and I mentioned that in it at two different places it represents the Canadian red ensign as a distinctive Canadian flag. I feel that the red ensign should have a running chance with any other flag that might be presented. If the red ensign has been the flag of this country for 40 years, and we have waited 97 years for parliament to do something about a flag, I cannot see why we should get into this- I was going to say godawful hurry-debate on a flag issue at this point, when we have such a large body of opinion in the country telling the Prime Minister and the members of this house that it does not necessarily want the flag that has been proposed in this resolution.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come for this house and its members to waken up to their responsibilities and listen to what is being said in this country. We have no divine right as parliamentarians to pass over a large body of expressed opinion. I have said in this statement that the government may or may not have had more seats, had it not had something about the flag in its literature. I was going to say propaganda, but no one knows what effect if any this point had in the election.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) that we should not be embroiled in a flag
[Mr. Leboe.l
fight at this time, and take up the time of the house with this issue when we have so much major legislation before us. I say to you, sir, that western and eastern Canada will never submit to such arbitrary action on the false premise that the elected representatives are doing what they were sent here to do.
I have said that the establishment of a national flag is not an administrative problem. It is aside and separate from any other issue, a distinct and peculiar problem and requires, therefore, particular action having regard for the feelings, emotions and desires of the majority of Canadians. We cannot brush aside all these things and say to the people at large that we, as a group of little dictators here, can do something without any reference to the people of the country who have voiced a very strong opinion on it.
On my desk I have two communications in favour of a new flag, but the rest of the communications are in favour of the red ensign. Anybody who wishes may look through my files to verify this. I say that the choice of a national flag is one place where the democratic voice of the people must be heard before action is taken.
I said that all the members in this house could not deny the democratic right of the people to voice an opinion on something that is supposed to last, shall we say, forever,- a flag that is going to represent Canada's future and its past. Are we as a little group, who have never been returned to this parliament on the basis of this issue, to decide that question? I say it is wrong in principle and it will be just as lasting as it is wrong because another prime minister, if he has a majority in the house, can bring in another flag.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


Bert Raymond Leboe: These people laugh.


David Réal Caouette: You people.


Bert Raymond Leboe: If you are going to be prime minister some day, maybe you might.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Never. We will have a revolution.


Bert Raymond Leboe: We got some reaction out of that.


David Réal Caouette: The reaction of the Conservatives.


Bert Raymond Leboe: The flag which the hon. member had on his desk a little while ago would likely be the one he would promote.


David Réal Caouette: Well, it is from B.C. anyway.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Regardless of where it is from. No clear mandate has been given to the government to bring in a new flag, and therefore to do so is not being brave or courageous but is overemphasizing the importance of the proposed action. It is not related to the majority of opinions. To stand on your head on the edge of a cliff is neither brave, courageous, nor common sense, and this is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing in his political career-standing on his head on the edge of a cliff.
No vote on the proposed resolution regarding the flag can be a free vote for government supporters regardless of where they sit in the house. I say regardless of where they sit in the house because we in this party have constantly supported the government, so long as it was going ahead with its legislative program, because the people of Canada wanted that, and because we wanted it. But right now we cannot be in the position of having a free vote in the house when we have the Prime Minister threatening the very people who sit beside him with an election which the people of Canada do not want, if this resolution is not carried. So far as I am concerned, and I said at the beginning that I am speaking personally, this is a type of blackmail when the Prime Minister says such a thing to the people who are sitting with him.


Mr. Rock:: He did not say such a thing.


Bert Raymond Leboe: He said "or else" we would have an election. I have won four elections out of five and I am not particularly resisting one. If there is a change around here I think I will be sitting somewhere around these parts. I may not be around over there, but I will be around these parts.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Hear, hear.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I see one of the Quebec boys is applauding when I say "in conclusion", but he is the only one applauding. As I said on June 5:
X predict that if the resolution on the flag comes to a vote that the government party and the official opposition will divide almost to the man on party lines, giving ample proof of emphasis on party political considerations and a representative vote on the issue reflecting the wishes of the electors will be pushed into the background in the hope that ignoring the facts will make them disappear.
There have been a number of polls as to the way we are going to vote in this house.
Canadian Flag
Many guesses have been made; and understandably. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said, "Our party is for a flag with one maple leaf". Is this a free vote? Is this- a free situation? No; these are party considerations. We have got a situation where, when the vote is counted, there is going to be almost to a man a straight division on party lines. Why not? It has been taken as a party consideration. Why? Because the Prime Minister has said there is going to be an election if this thing does not carry. It was thrown right into the political arena, and therefore I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we should at this time pass the decision over to the people of Canada. Let them have four or five different designs, including the red ensign, to choose from. Let there be a transferable ballot. Every member of this house knows what a transferable ballot is. In case there is anybody who does not, it is a ballot whereby you put your first, second, third, fourth and fifth choice on the ballot and if your first choice gets the lowest number of votes your second choice becomes the first choice, and so on. In the final analysis, one flag would have a majority of over 50 per cent of the votes in this country and we would have a flag which could be introduced into the parliament of Canada and carried through this House of Commons and we would have a permanent flag for Canada. This is what the Prime Minister said he wants and, if he is going to get it, I say to him in all sincerity, this is how to get it.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member who just resumed his seat, I would be inclined to suggest to him to sit next to the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), since he spoke exactly in the same way and he used the same terms, with the same objective in mind.
He stated among other things that he had on his desk an enormous number of letters suggesting him to introduce to the house the red ensign as our national distinctive flag. He also suggested to us in English:

"Stand on your own head."

Since we are not used to standing on our heads but rather on our own feet, he should have said: "Stand on your own feet."

"Stand on your own feet." But be Canadians.
Canadian Flag



Mr. Speaker, before coming to the heart of the matter, I should like to remind the house of the amendment proposed last night by the Leader of the Opposition. He narrowly missed proposing it but he nevertheless succeeded in bringing it forward.

As the proposal to change Canada's national flag will affect the unity and destiny of Canada now and for years to come, the government is authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to conduct a plebiscite prior to any further action being taken by the House of Commons, in order that all Canadians may be given their rightful opportunity to declare their choice concerning a national flag.

Mr. Speaker, only a few words on that amendment to the main motion.
The Leader of the Opposition was for during five years-


An hon. Member:: No, for six years.


David Réal Caouette: -for six years, prime minister of Canada. Seven or eight years ago the Leader of the Opposition advocated and promised a distinctive national flag. What prevented him, during the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, from presenting his referendum or plebiscite to the Canadian people in order to know what flag they wanted as their national and distinctive emblem?
The Leader of the Opposition is now attempting to play petty politics, to set forth that his group is more important than opposing groups. Moreover, I maintain that the Leader of the Opposition is using the resolution now before us in an attempt to create a climate of misunderstanding all across Canada, in an attempt to set the English speaking people against the French. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do.


An hon. Member:: He does it in his own party.


David Réal Caouette: As a matter of fact, he does it in his own party.
I shall name no one and I shall give no names of hon. members, but yesterday I met members of the Conservative party who seemed completely dissatisfied with the speech the Leader of the Opposition was making. It is strange to note that, during an election, the same Leader of the Opposition does not make the same speeches. Only at this time, because the government had enough daring and courage to present a distinctive

national flag for Canada, which we have been demanding for 25 years in this country, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make us believe that the flag presented by proposal (a) in the resolution is bound to satisfy only the French Canadians of the province of Quebec.
Never in the past did the province of Quebec have to choose between three maple leaves or one, but it has always suggested and still suggests that the adoption of a distinctive national flag must not be turned into a debate on race, religion or colour, but be exclusively and entirely a Canadian matter, exactly as proposed in the resolution.
I wish here to congratulate the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) for having had the courage to make the speech we all know before the members of the Canadian Legion -I should say before a few members of the Canadian Legion-because even if the Prime Minister met 1,500 or 2,000 of them in Winnipeg, there are thousands of others throughout Canada who did not like at all the way he was treated in Winnipeg.
When he spoke on that occasion to the members of the Canadian Legion gathered for their congress in Winnipeg, the Prime Minister stated that the time had come for Canada to have a real flag different from those of other countries and which will be officially recognized throughout the world as the emblem of Canada.
From the time of their first election campaign, our group of Creditistes as well as the other Social Credit group have favoured and advocated the adoption of a distinctive national flag and a distinctive national anthem. Here is what one could read in the campaign program distributed throughout the country in 1962:
A Social Credit government would proceed immediately to the adoption of a distinctive flag and a national anthem.
Not a flag and a national anthem related to others, but quite distinctive.
In the province of Quebec, the publicity handed out during the election campaigns by the Ralliement Creditistes also showed that we wanted to provide Canada with a distinctive flag.
So, on November 21, 1962, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) moved:
That this house is of the opinion that the government should agree within one year-
That was in 1962 and we are now in 1964.
-to a design for a suitable distinctive national flag and introduce legislation in this house for the adoption of this emblem.

It was a Conservative member, the parliamentary secretary of the then minister of veterans affairs, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones), who had the sad honour to kill the motion.
At the opening of the session in May 1963, I deplored the fact that on the occasion of the state ceremonies which accompany the arrival of the Governor General, only the royal anthem God Save the Queen had been played, and not the national anthem O Canada. I also deplored the fact that no Canadian distinctive flag had been set up.
I said then:
Why did we not have a distinctive national flag at that time? I remember that in 1956-57, when the Conservatives had taken over, we expected to have a distinctive national flag. I hope that during all those years in the opposition the Liberals had the opportunity of studying the feasibility of giving Canada a distinctive national flag and a national anthem.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, time has come for Canada to have a really distinctive emblem.
Now, the members of the house and the people of Canada were bewildered to see, on May 27, the Prime Minister suggest not one design of a national flag, but two designs of emblems for Canada.
We would be the only country in the world to have had the chance to have two flags and two national emblems.
The press and all other information and publicity media, put out by that action on the part of the Prime Minister, had a lot to say about it.
First, I should like to quote Le Devoir of May 28. That newspaper carried the following front page headline on four columns and three branches.
Pearson proposes two flags:
One national, with three maple leaves;
One royal, the union jack.
And the news item was as follows:
Three red maple leaves on a white field with blue edges, such is the design proposed yesterday in the House of Commons and which may never become Canada's flag. Because, in their attempt to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, it may be that the government lost the majority which would have enabled them to provide the country with a- distinctive flag, 33 years after independence and 96 years after the constitution of the provinces into a federation.
Their mistake-
-continued Le Devoir-
-is that they joined the resolution introducing the flag to a statement of policy reaffirming our allegiance to the British crown and authorizing the flying of the union jack besides the maple leaf.
Canadian Flag
Here, I cannot refrain from referring to other countries that belong to the commonwealth of British nations, or the British commonwealth of nations. I have in mind Jamaica where, after acceding to independence, they did not vote for two flags, but for only one. It is a small country of 1,200,000 people which has its own distinctive national flag and anthem, with no outside connection whatsoever.
If, with our own emblem, our own flag, we cannot declare ourselves linked or united to the communities or countries that are part of the commonwealth of nations, then I say, sir, that we do not even deserve our Canadian independence or our sovereignty, as stated yesterday by the right hon. Prime Minister.
On May 28, a three branch title, spread over five columns on the front page of a newspaper said this:
The Pearson plan (two flags and two anthems) stirred up opposition.
The news item itself did not fail to emphasize the confusion bred by the government project. Let me quote part of the text:
The government proposal whereby Canada, which has been without a flag and without a national anthem since its beginning, would suddenly be provided with two flags and two anthems, has created further confusion and led to various reactions in political circles, not only because of its contents, but also of its form. By all appearance...
added the article,
... not only the French Canadian, but also the Anglo-Saxon members of parliament would vote against such a proposal, but for different reasons.
The reasons for that criticism were made known to us yesterday afternoon, when we had to discuss whether we should accept the government proposal or have two separate motions, due to the fact that the government, in order to please everybody, and not to be the victim of a colonialism which still exists in some parts of Canada, wanted officially to confirm the remnants of an obsolete nation, imposing them on the majority of Canadians who want Canada to be a sovereign, independent and free country, without any trace of colonialism.
At this stage I want to bring to the attention of the government and to the Prime Minister the fact that on May 27, when he introduced his resolution including the two flags, the first member to ask for a division of that resolution so that we might vote twice, once on a distinctive flag and then on the union jack, was the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).

Private Bills
Mr. Speaker, we always asked that a distinctive national flag be adopted not for the mere pleasure of seeing some bunting on a pole, but to have a distinctive national flag which would mean something to Canada. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said the other day and repeated this afternoon, a flag symbolizing the security of the Canadian people as well as the freedom of all individuals who have built up and live in this Canada of ours.
That is why we want to adopt a distinctive national flag.
Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-30 respecting The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company-Mr. Lachance.

Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-31, respecting The Casualty Company of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-31, is to grant The Casualty Company of Canada the right to use also a French name which is mentioned therein and reads as follows:
La Casualty, Compagnie d'assurance du Canada.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell us how many people make up that company's board of directors, that is the number of Canadians compared to the number of foreigners, for instance, and the number of directors living in the province of Quebec compared to the total number of directors?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I must point out to the house that the hon. member can only answer that question on the understanding by the house that he is not closing the debate.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, I take exception to that procedure for the simple reason that
[Mr. Caouette.l
if this bill is referred to a committee there will be ample opportunity for any hon. member to ask questions at that time. Furthermore, when the bill comes back from the committee for concurrence in its final stages, particularly in the committee stage, there will be abundant opportunity to ask questions, where interrogation can take place back and forth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I have to agree with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) that perhaps the proper procedure is for hon. members to ask their questions and then allow the hon. member moving second reading to answer the questions when he winds up the debate on second reading. That might be the better procedure. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, what type of procedure are we following here-with a bill put before the house in this way, no explanation being given by the hon. member sponsoring the bill or anything like that? A question has been asked the hon. member in respect of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I recognize that a question has been asked of the sponsor of the bill, but I do not think he would be permitted to answer this question on second reading unless it were understood that he was not closing the debate. An hon. member who sponsors a bill and speaks for a second time on second reading under our rules closes the debate. When the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) asked a question I reminded the house that the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) could only answer the question on the understanding that he was not closing the debate. That permission was not given by the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-37, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, Bill No. C-37, is to grant eligibility for

an allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act to those veterans of world war I who would qualify for an allowance except that they served in the United Kingdom less than 365 days prior to November 12, 1918. The allowance, however, would be less than a standard allowance as it would be calculated on the fraction of the number of days served in fact.
One of the requirements at the present time is that a veteran must have served in the United Kingdom for 365 days, and as many people know we have a number of veterans who just fall short of that required number of days service. In other words, if a veteran did serve in the United Kingdom 364 days out of the 365 he was not entitled to benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
This bill is designed to eliminate what I consider a discrimination in our veterans legislation against certain member of the services who served in the army-and this applies only to the army-during world war I. Under the present terms of the War Veterans Allowance Act personnel of the army in world war I, as I said before, must have served 365 days outside of the territorial waters of North America, or in a so-called theatre of war such as France, Belgium, or, during world war I, in the Dardanelles, before they became eligible under the act. Travelling on the Atlantic ocean, for example, was not considered service in a theatre of war for a soldier during world war I. Naval personnel or seamen assigned to the same vessel, on the other hand, were considered for purposes of the act to be on active service and qualified for the benefits under the act by making only one voyage in dangerous waters. Herein I contend lies the discrimination between the various services. I say that the personnel of the army have been discriminated against in this case.
Bill No. C-37 is only a means by which I propose to bring once again this evident discrimination between our veterans before the members of this house. The bill itself proposes a sliding scale of eligibility of the veterans concerned. I would much prefer, as would other hon. members of this house, to see the deletion of that clause which refers to the 365 days service in our veterans allowance legislation.
I wish to cite as examples three cases, just to illustrate the point I am trying to make. In case No. 1 we will refer to a veteran by the name of Bill. He is a Canadian and was born in 1898. He volunteered in 1916 but was turned down on account of faulty vision, or
War Veterans Allowance Act on account of his eyes. However, he was accepted in 1917 and sailed from Halifax in November, arriving in England on December 6, 1917. He served seven days a week in forestry battalions in the old country. He returned to Canada in 1919. His length of service was actually two years. His present health is very poor and he is unable to work. His eligibility under the War Veterans Allowance Act is nil.
In the second case I wish to cite we will call the veteran Jack and he was born in Scotland in 1900. He was called up by the British army in the last six months of the war and was sent to France where he was given the job of looking after a gasoline engine 40 miles behind the line. He was discharged from the British army in 1919. He migrated to Canada in the late 1920's and after 20 years in Canada he qualified and now receives the full war veterans allowance under our Canadian legislation.
The third case is Leo. Leo's case is much the same as Jack's except that Leo was born in Italy, but he migrated to Canada about the same time that Jack did. He also, having been an allied soldier in world war I through service in the Italian army, qualifies according to the act, and I say rightly so.
These three cases I have cited are not hypothetical at all, but are actual cases. Jack and Leo need not enter into the argument I intend to put forward. The fact is that Bill deserves full recognition as a Canadian volunteer. It was not his fault that he did not arrive in England prior to November 11, 1917. The fact is that he tried; he volunteered.
To a number of hon. members it may be a revelation or appear inconceivable that we still have today men, and some women too, in this country who served two or three years in the Canadian forces, and yet through certain quirks of the legislation enacted after world war I they are still without entitlement to war veterans allowances.
If time permitted it would be interesting to acquaint hon. members with what research reveals as the reason why such legislation was enacted by our predecessors which left many of our veterans without benefits under this act. In the early stages of world war I recruiting was done on a voluntary basis and remained on this basis during the years 1914, 1915, 1916 and part of 1917, I believe. A number of veterans of world war I travelled many miles at that time at their own expense to enlist in units that were recruiting The situation was a little different at the time of world war II, but in those days they

War Veterans Allowance Act did not appear before a medical board as recruits did at the time we enlisted, but only before the unit's medical officer. The result of his examination sometimes depended on how badly the unit required men.
This statement is not intended as a reflection on the medical officers of 50 years ago, because there were a number of jobs in all units in those days that did not require what we consider now to be an A category man. It must be remembered that to a greater extent in those days fatigues pertaining to administration of a unit were done manually, and most hon. members are aware that transportation was horsedrawn. In fact, it took an army of men to do the daily chores in any unit. It was generally agreed at that time that it took six men behind the lines to keep one man fighting at the front, and all six of these men were considered to be indispensable at that time.
It was not until the unit was warned for overseas that a medical board appeared and the members of the unit were given a thorough medical examination. Even then, doubtful eyes but a good pair of feet would sometimes get the volunteer accepted. The men that were turned down by the medical board were not necessarily discharged from the army. At this time, as I have said, there were many jobs for low category men, and in addition to these administrative jobs there were other units being formed at that time which needed recruits. These consisted of pioneer battalions, labour battalions, forestry battalions, railway troops and others, most of whose strength consisted of low category personnel. Most of these units were eventually sent overseas, and once there it was the luck of the draw whether you were sent to a forestry unit in southern France or whether you were amongst those who ended up in Scotland or in some English forest with a lumbering unit. I am making these remarks because you will see later that these men were entirely bypassed when it came time for the enactment of veterans allowances. Let me remind the house that I am still referring to the years 1914, 1915 and 1916. Conscription had not yet entered into the picture.
By this time, however, Canada was 100 per cent involved in a war and found herself trying to supply an army 3,000 miles from her shores. By 1916 casualties with wound stripes on their arms were appearing on the streets of our cities. The flow of volunteers was drying up. Our daily newspapers carried headlines regarding the fearful toll of Cana-

dian casualties on the Somme. Men who found enlistment impossible a year before were now being accepted and those with an A category were being dispatched to England as fast as they could be sent there. Those with lower categories took their places on administrative staffs, and there they remained, to add to the list of forgotten soldiers so far as war veterans allowances were concerned.
By 1917 Canada was scraping the bottom of the barrel for voluntary casualty replacements. The government decided that other means had to be found. In 1917 a general election was held in Canada with conscription as the issue. A union government was elected and a conscription act was passed. This was greatly resented in some parts of our country and it was found difficult to administer. By some it was claimed to be an act of exemption rather than one of conscription. It may have had the desired result but it did nothing toward quieting the bitterness and animosity which the volunteer troops had ingrained in them toward the new recruits. Men arriving in England after the act of conscription was passed were immediately dubbed conscripts, and this name stuck to them for the duration, even though included in the 1917 arrivals were many men who had volunteered early in the war but who had been held in Canada for one reason or another until the latter part of 1917 or the beginning of 1918.
After the war the troops came home and set about re-establishing themselves under the legislation provided for them. So far as war veterans allowances were concerned, it was decreed that a man who had served in the trenches had shortened his life by ten years and he should receive benefits not allowed the man who had served only in England. The term "theatre of actual war" then appeared, and all of continental Europe was included even though conditions in some parts of France were superior to and less dangerous than those in some parts of England and Scotland.
The resentment held by first line veterans toward those soldiers who had enlisted under the act of conscription did not end with the war. Some veterans organizations went so far in fact as to bar such soldiers from membership and recommended that they not be eligible for gratuities and allowances. This attitude no doubt had some influence on the Canadian cabinet of that day, and for years the volunteer soldier who did all his soldiering in this country or in Great Britain re-

mained without entitlement so far as war veterans allowance was concerned.
After the second world war, when the new brand of veterans legislation was introduced, veterans organizations commenced to change their thinking and from time to time briefs were presented to the cabinet of the day asking for changes whereby these forgotten veterans of world war I would be remembered. In 1957 the War Veterans Allowance Act was amended to make eligible all veterans who had served in Great Britain for at least 365 days prior to November 12, 1918. We know that the amendment has now been reworded and the time is now computed from the time the soldier's convoy left Canada rather than from the time it arrived at a British port.
There are some who say the line has to be drawn somewhere. I am one who does not think so. If there has to be a yardstick for measuring the soldier's days of service, then in my opinion it should commence on the date of his attestation. This is the date he placed himself in the hands of the military authorities and attested to serve his country for the duration. In my opinion, it is somewhat ridiculous to measure this 365-day period from any other date than the soldier's date of attestation. This was the date he ceased to be the master of his days, so far as his private affairs are concerned.
I would say that the irony of this whole subject is that there are few members in this house who are familiar with the act who do not agree that the time is long past for this act to be amended. It is not, nor has it ever been, a case of showing charity to these veterans who are so affected. They have earned their entitlement, which we believe they should have been given from the start.
The original War Veterans Allowance Act was amended some time ago to include veterans from our allies in the first war after a residence of 20 years in this country. This length of residence has now been shortened, as we all know, to 10 years. The result is that we are paying, as taxpayers of Canada, war veterans allowance to veterans of the imperial army, Italian veterans and to veterans who served in the Russian, French and Belgian forces during world war I. I want to make it quite clear that I do not regret the eligibility of these veterans, but I do say, let us also look after our own.


Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek for the
War Veterans Allowance Act public-spiritedness he has shown in introducing this bill, and also for his devotion to the cause of our war veterans, a cause held dear by all of us, in that same capacity.
We all recognize the country's enormous debt of gratitude to the men and women who, directly or indirectly, are affected by this measure. Let us not overlook any means of improving the lot of these veterans, in the matter either of pensions or of hospitalization.
The successive governments, since the last war, have neglected nothing in this respect; they have realized that the people who sacrificed themselves for the preservation of democratic rights are the very people who today must be credited with the development of our society.
However, the hon. members who will follow me will surely be puzzled when they see the difficulties the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) will face when dealing with the eligibility referred to in the bill now before us. Our legislation should be the same for all. We know that its application will be very complicated.
First of all, before proceeding with the consideration of this bill, the government should ascertain unequivocally the number of those eligible, which will not be easy.
Second, the number of those already receiving old age security, unemployment assistance or disabled persons allowances should be ascertained so as to prevent any overlapping in the payment of benefits, which would complicate all the more the work of the department.
The partial eligibility resulting from service in the United Kingdom, namely 365 days, should then be established, as well as the pro rata payment, or a month's service in the United Kingdom, on a 30/365 basis.
It should also be pointed out that many veterans already receive benefits. If they should come under this act, it is wondered whether they would not suffer a decrease in pension during a certain period. That is where the whole pension and allowance structure should be revised. The whole matter should be thought out.
After such compiling, amounts payable would not be related to established figures and it would be most difficult to prepare estimates. In short, it would thus be very hard to administer Bill No. C-37 and to relate the amounts set with revenues.
Should we stick to the period of 365 days to compute our claims and our compilations? I do not see its immediate importance and I should like to make it very clear at this point

War Veterans Allowance Act that the government is now doing all it can to improve the lot of veterans in so far as allowances suitable to their case and needs are concerned.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to say a few words in support of the bill which we have before us. If I understood the last speaker correctly, he said there was no immediate importance to the proposal in the bill. I should like to suggest to him that while this may not be a matter of immediate importance to him, it could be of extreme importance to a veteran in need of assistance who is edged out of eligibility by three or four days or a week.
I believe that one principle which has long been established and recognized in Canada is that the veterans of Canadian forces are entitled to premium consideration with regard to their eligibility for pensions and related benefits because of the fact they have been members of those armed forces and involved in the risks, dangers and disabilities that have arisen from their service in the cause of their country. I may say that my own reaction is that this proposal put forward by the hon. member is a modest one. It is only too bad that when the step was taken to include the veterans of the first world war who had been in the United Kingdom during their service rather than in France, this formula was not included. Certainly it does seem to be a minimal step in regard to fairness, so far as eligibility is concerned, if one is going to accept the principle that some period of service is necessary for eligibility for war veterans allowance.
I must say that so far as my own personal reaction is concerned, particularly after the lapse of all these years, a Canadian veteran who served overseas in the first world war and who needs the benefits that are provided under the War Veterans Allowance Act, should now be entitled to those benefits. I do not know how many Canadians would be involved in that situation in this day and age, but certainly any veteran who is in a position where he meets the eligibility requirements of the War Veterans Allowance Act, regarding his circumstances, and who is a veteran of the first world war, is of an age where he should have entitlement by right to the still rather limited benefits which that act provides over and above those which might be available to him under some other form of assistance supported by public funds.

That is all I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure there are other hon. members who want to take part in this discussion. I am sure there is hardly a member of the house who is not from time to time made directly aware of the kind of problems faced by veterans, and particularly by those who are now reaching more advanced years.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) for doing the work necessary to find some of the gaps and injustices that exist in the application of the War Veterans Allowance Act. As has just been pointed out, I am sure almost every member of the house has at times been confronted with a problem where he knows a veteran who has applied for such an allowance, and is satisfied there is every moral justification for granting one, but then runs into the problem of the interpretation of the regulations, which prevents it from being granted.
I do not believe there are a large number of war veterans who would become eligible following the passage of this amendment; but even if there were a large number, inasmuch as it specifically deals with world war I, most of those veterans are now reaching an age where we certainly have a responsibility to make some provision for them, if they need it.
There is also provision in this bill for calculating the allowance on the basis of the number of days actually served in Britain, if they were less than 365. For that reason it seems to me that a very large additional expenditure would not be involved, but it would correct one of the injustices that exist.
I do not quarrel with the priority of qualification-if you would like to call it that- which is in the present act respecting service in an actual theatre of war, nor even with some of the other provisions of the act. But with reference to veterans from the first world war we have to accept the principle that, whether they served in a theatre of war or not, they did in fact suffer from loss of income and from the opportunity to develop their jobs and businesses while they were in the army. This should be an increasingly important principle to bear in mind because of the present age of most of those veterans.
I also prefer, as a condition for qualification under the act, the date of attestation as a basis of calculation, rather than the actual number of days served overseas. But if the

government is not prepared to accept that date, at least it would be a great improvement if it were to accept the amendment proposed in this bill.
Hon. members should also take into consideration the fact that soldiers had very little control over where they were going to be posted, especially up until 1917. I am not exactly sure of the rules that applied at that time, whether if a man were conscripted it was only for service in Canada, or if there was a specific date when conscription meant for service anywhere in the world. I shall be very brief because I think the time has come when we should accept this principle of service anywhere, be it in Canada or elsewhere. This bill would be an improvement and would remove some of the gaps and injustices in the act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh).


Mr. Pugh:: May I defer to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much. I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) for raising this problem and going to the trouble of presenting a bill and bringing in a very well documented case for our consideration.
I was very much interested in some of the things he said and in his knowledge of the situation with regard to first world war veterans. I took particular note of the indication he gave that he realizes that men who served in an actual theatre of war in the first world war were not at times too kindly disposed to those who did not reach that theatre of war.
Even in a theatre of war such as Belgium and France, the men who were up in the front lines were not too enthusiastic about people who were serving in the base installations. At times that attitude of mind prevailed even with regard to those men who were at rear headquarters and battalion headquarters just behind the lines. That attitude of mind prevailed for a long time, and I am sure it affected the drawing up of legislation in this house and the definition of the word "veteran." The word veteran, to a man who fought in the first world war, meant a person who had actually served in a theatre of war and who had been in grave danger.
The second world war changed the picture very considerably, because men and women from Canada served virtually all over the world, and places in the first world war which
War Veterans Allowance Act were free from serious attack became theatres of war in the second world war. A man who served in Britain in the second world war served in a theatre of war, whereas in the first world war this was not the case; he had to cross the channel before he really ran into any danger. Those of us who were in Britain in the second world war know perfectly well that we were often in a much safer place in a military camp than were civilians in the towns and cities.
So the word "veteran" has changed its meaning over the years and is not as distinctive as it was just subsequent to the first world war. This has caused some difficulty in the Department of Veterans Affairs when legislation was being drawn up, as well as to the veterans organizations. The definition of the word "veteran" has been considerably modified, as is instanced in the notes to the bill in front of us. I quote from the reference to section 30, subsection 3, where a veteran is described as a person who served in the United Kingdom during the first world war for at least 365 days prior to November 12, 1918. Enlargement of the term "veteran" has caused some heartburning in official circles for a long time.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) indicated the interest of people now in the older veterans, and the advantages of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Of course, it was originally drawn up, as he said, to make provision for men who served in a theatre of war-men who served in the trenches and returned without any visible sign of having served overseas-that is, they were not wounded. Yet as time elapsed medical officers observed that a number of the men who had served in the trenches aged prematurely; unwounded men who had perhaps served for a year or two years or even longer during the engagements in France came home to Canada without any extra provision being made for them at all. But the aging factor became apparent and, consequently, the War Veterans Allowance Act was developed and veterans aged 60 and over, in difficult economic circumstances, became eligible for assistance under that measure.
With the development of social security and a changing attitude in Canada, the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act have been extended, and I think properly so. The proposal now placed before us is one which is worthy of very serious consideration. I recall, when I was minister of veterans affairs, dealing with this particular problem of the

War Veterans Allowance Act number of days of service in the United Kingdom. The question of the cut-off date arose. As time goes on, people say: That should be shifted. I think it is only right that it should be shifted with changing conditions. I well recall that we took a good look at the survivors of the South African war. I remember saying to my officials: The survivors of that war are in their eighties and nineties; let us relax the regulations as far as they are concerned, and at least give them a few years of happiness if we can provide some assistance for them. And we did. We were able to assist some of them. Yet under the terms of the act as it stood, they did not qualify.
Now we have reached the stage where the average age of those who served in the first world war is 71. These men are a vanishing race. Some of them, who volunteered for service and who, through no fault of their own, did not reach the theatre of war in France, or who, again through no fault of their own, were in Britain for fewer than 365 days, perhaps require a little more attention than has been given to them up to the present time.
I am not sure that the bill as presently drafted may not need some modification. It is perhaps the type of bill the subject matter of which should be referred to the committee on veterans affairs. Unless this is done it will lapse and this particular problem will not receive the attention it deserves. It will not receive the attention it deserves because the spokesman for the government, the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon) raised the usual objections which come from officials. He said it would be difficult for the department to administer; that it would be hard to determine the number of people who might qualify.
Well, all these difficulties can be overcome. The records are there; they just have to be searched. They show when a man enlisted, how long he was in Canada and how long he was overseas. They have been carefully kept and this is not an insuperable job at all. I was amused to hear the objections which emanate from officialdom. I do not mind the officials raising the objections; that is their job. They have to point out to ministers and parliamentary secretaries the difficulties in the way of new legislation, and they are responsible for showing that these difficulties exist. But as far as the government is concerned, it should deal with these difficulties and take the necessary steps to put some new measure into effect, if it is found as a matter of policy to be worth while.

I think that a bill of this nature is commendable and that the subject matter should be carefully studied. A spokesman for the government might have undertaken to do this. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Carter) is present, and, given the chance, he might have said earlier that his department intended to consider this question and, perhaps, bring in some amendments later in the year. If on the other hand the department intends to do nothing, then the subject matter should be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs. Let them have a go at it. Officials could be called in to indicate the problems which arise and others could, perhaps, show how these problems could be overcome.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) indicate their approval in principle of this measure. They paid their respects to those who have served abroad, and I think Canada generally has been appreciative of those who have volunteered to serve abroad in the defence of freedom. If they are older people, now, I think it is within the capability of the committee to say whether something might not be done for them.
I raise just one question before I sit down. I wonder whether it would be advisable to make a strictly proportionate estimate of the amount of money which might be paid. Perhaps an easier rule of thumb could be introduced in this regard, because you might get 201 over 365 for one man and 59 over 365 for another. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it might be simplified by being divided into three parts, or something of that nature. Even that eventually would not satisfy everyone, but it would remove part of the difficulty of having to deal with, say, 500 people each one having a different percentage of entitlement. However, that is something the committee could decide. I would like to express my approval of the bill, and if it comes to a vote I shall certainly vote in favour of it.


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to commend the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) for bringing this matter before the house. I certainly agree with the principle of his bill. However, I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) that he does not go far enough in his bill, and because he does not go far enough it is going to give rise to difficulties that have not been

mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).
The section we are discussing today was brought in in 1957 by the previous government. It allowed those veterans who did not get beyond the United Kingdom to become eligible for war veterans allowance, provided they had served a year prior to November 12, 1918. In world war I the United Kingdom was not classed as a theatre of war, but in world war II it was. Therefore veterans of world war I and world war II have been treated differently, with the balance in favour of the veterans of world war II. I should like to read just one quotation from the debates of 1957 in this connection, Mr. Speaker. I have other quotations, but I do not wish to take up the time of the house. I shall read from page 822 of the House of Commons Debates, 1957-58. The hon. member for Acadia at that time, Mr. Quelch, said:
Then I understand that veterans who saw service in England only, under certain conditions will be allowed to receive the war veterans allowance. I have always argued that where a veteran volunteered for service in any theatre of war he was entitled to the war veterans allowance even though he did not get beyond England because that was not his fault. He had volunteered for service anywhere. If the army found that they could use him to better advantage in England than elsewhere, the veteran should not be penalized as a consequence. I am hoping that the legislation will provide that all these veterans who volunteered for service overseas and were left in England will be eligible for the war veterans allowance.
When this legislation was originally drafted it was said it was to look after those who were pre-aged due to hardships and the dangers of serving in the trenches in world war I. The one year provision of service prior to November 12, 1918 was actually recommended by the Royal Canadian Legion and the government accepted that recommendation. I have my doubts about the administration of this bill, for two reasons. First of all, I think for the first time we are going to fragment eligibility. At the present time you are either eligible for a pension or you are not eligible, and then you draw an amount based on the pension or on your disability, depending on the kind of pension you draw. Here we are introducing, for the first time in legislation, a percentage of eligibility. The hon. member in his bill mentions as an example 200 days of service. Therefore a man would be really 200-365ths eligible. At the present time, as most hon. members are aware, the war veterans allowance for a married man is $144 a month. If we were to carry this bill to its extreme, where the man served for one
War Veterans Allowance Act day in the United Kingdom-which is possible-for compassionate reasons or for some other reason-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Or on the high seas.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: I thank the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). As I was saying, if a man served for one day in the United Kingdom he would be eligible for a pension of l-365th of $144 a month, which amounts to 40 cents a month. I think this is highly impractical; there must be a cut-oil date somewhere. I disagree with the form of this bill, and in a few moments I shall deal with what I think should be done in this respect. There should be no time limit. With regard to the second reason, which is really based on the first, this fragmentation makes the bill administratively impossible. I have already pointed out that you could have a situation where a veteran was eligible for a l-365th pension amounting to 40 cents a month. What happens to the veteran who is receiving war veterans allowance and who is entitled to receive treatment for any illness in a war veterans hospital? Does this mean he is eligible, again, for l-365th of his medication, medicine and drugs? In other words, again there has to be a cut-off date for his treatment. If this date is not to be included in any legislation it becomes administratively impossible for the authorities to calculate what would be the entitlement of a veteran in hospital, having regard to the fraction of time that he served.
As I said when I rose to speak on this bill, Mr. Speaker, I think it is an attempt by the hon. member to bring in a very good principle. I personally believe the bill should be amended by removing from clause (b) all the words after "world war I", which would then mean that anybody who served in the United Kingdom during world war I would be eligible. I think any veteran who served in England in world war I should be given the same entitlement as a veteran of world war II. I would be prepared to support the bill, with that amendment, completely.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, as it is not yet six o'clock I wonder whether the house would give consideration to maintaining this particular bill in its priority on the order paper in order that further discussion could be had on it later this session? I see that it is not yet six o'clock, and I would ask that this permission be given by the house.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
Business of the House
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent to allowing this bill to retain its position on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: There is not unanimous consent. Before I declare the hour for the consideration of private members' business ended I should like to point out to the house that with regard to the bill we have been debating there is some doubt in the mind of the Chair as to whether the bill is in order. The Chair has not intervened, for the simple reason that the Chair was not of any definite decision, and neither was the matter raised by any hon. member who spoke in the debate. I bring this to the attention of the house because I would not want the house to use this debate, when there is some doubt in the mind of the Chair, as a precedent for another debate, when there was no doubt in the mind of the Chair.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on this matter before we leave the subject? I was quite prepared to debate this point if it were raised. I think hon. members will agree that the topic about which I spoke was the eligibility of veterans under the existing provisions. In other words, the money has been provided; the question is just those who are eligible to partake of that money. It has nothing to do with money matters, as far as I am concerned; this question is the eligibility of veterans to partake of money already provided by parliament.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows:
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), immigration; John Thomadakis, opportunity to obtain legal counsel: No. 2, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan), national defence, Halifax; dismissal of civilian cook: No. 3, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), administration of justice; continuation of studies by F.L.Q. members in prison.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m. 
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker:
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.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at five o'clock I was saying that a great many Canadians who want to see Canada free at last from any colonial signs also want Canada to be recognized as a sovereign, independent and free nation.
If so, why did the Prime Minister, after indicating a clear track in Winnipeg, suddenly resort to a switch if not to please some fanatics still existing in our country, not only on one side but on both sides, because I have always considered that those who wanted to see Canada connected with foreign affairs as well as those who do not want to see anything but their own personal interest, are hindering national unity.
Throughout Canada, the press was critical of the government's action. I should like to quote an editorial which was published in Le Devoir and which was written by one of French Canada's most moderate newspapermen, a man who has no hallucinations, Mr. Paul Sauriol. This is what he had to say:
Dividing the resolution would make it possible for the government to get out of a mess. A resolution on a distinctive flag and on the anthem O Canada would surely be carried.
Here, I must congratulate Your Honour for the decision you took yesterday with respect to the resolution. Perhaps it would not have compromised national unity in the long run, because personally I do not feel that the flag issue can strengthen national unity in Canada. There are other factors which will help to strengthen Canadian unity and not just the adoption of a flag or a national anthem. But separate resolutions will help us to consider the matter objectively.
As for the resolution on the union jack and God Save the Queen, they are not essential to the election promise concerning those British symbols. In any case, separate resolutions would help to indicate the subordination of the old symbols to the new ones.

Mr. Sauriol concluded his editorial of June 2 by saying:
The union jack and God Save the Queen are not in England symbols restricted to the crown as such; they are the national flag and the national anthem of the United Kingdom. Mr. Pearson's proposals emphasize the British character of the crown in Canada. These traces of imperialism are bound to create deep uneasiness in the province of Quebec at the present time.
Not only in Quebec, but also in many other Canadian provinces.
At this point, I would like to say that we Quebeckers would object just as much to a symbol representing France which is, in the final analysis, the country where we have our roots, whose soil has nurtured our own French Canadian roots-our forefathers came from France-but we would not accept a French symbol as an emblem for Canada. We want to be what we have always been, true Canadians who are determined to remain so, Canadians who want emblems and symbols meant especially for them and for nobody else in the whole wide world.
Then again, the editorial writer in La Presse, Mr. Guy Cormier, did not mince his words and put on kid gloves when he maintained, on June 3 of this year, that this political principle, "divide and rule", set down by one of the Prime Minister's predecessors, namely Mr. Mackenzie King, no longer applied nowadays.
Here are a few excerpts from that editorial:
Mr. Pearson, who went to Winnipeg to take the bull by the horns, will not try to come and sell the union jack in Quebec. When he came to Montreal last week, to attend the convention of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Prime Minister did not even refer to the matter. He knows how Quebec feels about the union jack.
He is trying to gain time, time being the best ingredient in which to dissolve a compromise.
But Mackenzie King's recipes are now worthless.
Mr. Speaker, it does not mean that we have no respect for the union jack. When the union jack is presented to Canada as the flag, the emblem of England, we agree, we acquiesce and we recognize it as a flag that advocated and spread the ideas of personality in the whole world, and we are prepared to respect it. But when an attempt is made to impose the union jack as a national emblem, we do not agree at all, not any more than we would agree for the emblem of France or for Frenchmen who would come to Canada and tell us what we should or should not do. We can decide for ourselves. The Prime Minister tried to gain time, because time is the ingredi-
Canadian Flag
ent which can best dissolve compromise. But Mackenzie King's recipes are no longer worth anything. No, Mr. Speaker, the recipes cherished by Mackenzie King are now worthless in Canada, in 1964, especially when the people of Quebec realize how they were exploited for years by politicians belonging to all the old parties.
The government had to retreat and capitulate. They took their time, letting the resolution simmer on the order paper for weeks.
And suddenly, we are faced with an intervention by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, with references to support his argument, claimed it would be better to divide the original resolution. The right hon. Prime Minister contributed his patter, half one thing and half another, whereas Mr. Speaker's decision was perfectly in accord with the arguments and quotations put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
It is evident that the ruling made yesterday afternoon was not a spontaneous one, issuing from the debates which took place in this house before five o'clock, but that the whole thing had been orchestrated by a master hand.
Mr. Speaker, we appreciate your ruling, for it now allows us to study this question of a distinctive flag with all due objectivity and without running against contradictory factors which would have precluded us from voting yes or no on the original motion.
However, I shall not go so far as to say that we are entirely satisfied with the choice of a distinctive flag made by the government.
If, on the one hand, the government no longer forces us to vote for legislation which materializes and recalls our subordination to the crown of Great Britain, it nevertheless remains that the flag design bearing three red maple leaves is in itself of British and regal inspiration.
First of all, let us read the text of the resolution:
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.
Here is an admittance, Mr. Speaker. It is not an emblem chosen by the Canadian people in 1964. There is no question of an emblem selected by the Canadian government in 1964. But the emblem is that proclaimed by King George V in 1921. Besides, here is

Canadian Flag
how this royal proclamation by George V in the year 1921 reads in part:

We do hereby, by and with the advice of our privy council, and in exercise of the powers conferred by the first article of the union with Ireland act, 1800, appoint and declare that the arms or ensigns armorial of the dominion of Canada shall be...and the third division argent three maple leaves conjointed on one stem proper...
Given at our court at Buckingham palace, this twenty first day of November, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty one, and in the twelfth year of our reign.


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


David Réal Caouette: Yes, definitely.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether the hon. member would translate the word "argent" for us?


David Réal Caouette: Definitely, if it does not take any of my time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thirty seconds. Will the hon. member translate the word "argent" in the passage he read and tell us what it means?


David Réal Caouette: Silver.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Silver maple leaves, and it does not say anything about red or on a white background.


David Réal Caouette: They had red, but were probably using argent or silver around those maple leaves at that time in 1921.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where is the red?


David Réal Caouette: This is 1964 and probably my hon. friend is still in 1921.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You did not answer the
question.


David Réal Caouette: That document was tabled on December 4, 1945, before the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons when it was considering the question of a Canadian flag. For the information of committee members, Colonel A. Fortescue Duguid, official heraldist and historian of the Canadian expeditionary corps during the war of 1914-18, translated the royal proclamation into simple words, as follows:
The king, at the request of Canada, attributes to Canada white and blue as national colours and declares that the national emblem of Canada shall be constituted by three red maple leaves on one stem against a white background.
[Mr. Caouette.l
That, he said, answers the two following questions: "What are our national colours? What is the Canadian emblem?"
Now, Mr. Speaker, since those colours and that emblem were given to us in 1921 by King George V, they are not colours and emblems typically Canadian, chosen finally by Canada, by Canadians, by the Canadian parliament, but by the king of England and Scotland, who was then the emperor of India.
Such is the origin of the Pearson flag. It is not a flag that he has chosen. It is not colours that he has chosen. It is not an emblem that he has chosen. They are relics from the past, old souvenirs taken out of the drawers of Buckingham palace or of the colonial office and assigned to Canada more than 43 years ago.
Last night I heard the Leader of the Opposition tell us that we must not abandon old souvenirs; I regret that he is not here at this time, for I would tell him and his colleague, and especially his assistant-who is not his assistant but still the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer)-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why don't you shut up.


David Réal Caouette: -that I would not like to put on the boots of my great grandfather in 1964. But if my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is at ease in the boots of his great grandfather, let him put them on; then he will greatly help the parliament of the Canadian people.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You always lack judgment.


David Réal Caouette: Would the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption Montcalm have a question to put to me?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Villeneuve a very simple question. I want to ask him when he is going to resign for the good of the Canadian people?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, you can see that the question just asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm shows exactly what his frame of mind has been since he has come to this house. It is a stupid question which does not even deserve an answer, because the hon. member is but a simple member or a simple-minded one, I do not know how to put it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Villeneuve has shown a lack of judgment in his comments, and that

is why he has his speeches prepared by somebody else, because it is impossible for him to give a speech without notes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I ask hon. members to restrict their comments to the matter now under consideration?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, you know quite well that I was restricting myself to the matter under consideration. However, the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is always outside the question or off the track, as the saying goes. Let us leave him alone and proceed with the discussion of the matter now under study.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Go on reading, read well.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm says: "Go on reading", I suggest to him to read from now on, because when he does not, he is irresponsible, incoherent and he speaks like a stupid member.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Villeneuve is out of order; he is departing from the matter under discussion.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is still in the field, not in a potato field but rather in a tobacco field, since he comes from a tobacco-growing county.
And to proceed with my remarks on the resolution under study-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, under standing orders, a member is not supposed to read his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Once again, I would ask hon. members to deal strictly with the matter under consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, standing orders prohibit a member from reading his speech, and this is what the hon. member for Villeneuve is doing.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm told me that he was in favour of the red ensign. Therefore, let us leave him alone, and not bother with him any further.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon. member for Villeneuve is in favour of the union jack.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would not want you to include in my own time the minutes taken up by the hon. member for
Canadian Flag
Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm in making trivial remarks.
Having been in power for five years, a period marked by indecision, retreat and withdrawal, the former prime minister who enjoyed for four years, a majority never seen before in our country-


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is forbidden by the rules of the house-


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


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Under the rules of the house a member cannot read his speech and I ask you to apply the rules.


Gilles Grégoire: He is saying that because he cannot read.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member for Three Rivers tell me on what standing order he is calling?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, it is an old custom, which has always been recognized in the house, that a member cannot read his speech. On the other hand, it must be recognized that in the case of some hon. members it is a little more difficult to apply the rules, especially when those members are not too sure of their arguments. However, I feel that the house must bear with the hon. member for Villeneuve and let him read his speech.
Mr. Speaker, I now remember that it is standing order No. 44 which reads as follows: [Text]
It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech, for the reason that, "if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might read speeches that were written by other people, and the time of the house be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member will read page 125, in the middle of the page, he will see that there has been a growing practice in the other direction. We all know, of course, that over a period of years the practice has been growing in the house to allow members, in certain instances, to read the speeches that they present to the house. Unless serious objection is taken at this time, the hon. member may continue to read his speech and I suggest that the matter be left there.


Léon Balcer: I want to be tolerant. I know that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is not used to making speeches and

Canadian Flag
in the last couple of years he has made very few of them. I am ready to permit him to continue to read the text of a speech which has been prepared by some other member-
I don't know who.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could the hon. member for Villeneuve tell us whether his speech was written by Mrs. Gilberte Cote-Mercier?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am just consulting my notes, but the hon. member for Three Rivers would not understand, since he does not know how to read. In fact, he is afraid that I might quote from the speech made by his leader yesterday evening, because it would be embarrassing for him to hear a rerun of such an anti-Canadian speech, which was so detrimental to national unity.
When the Conservative leader spoke yesterday evening, the hon. member for Three Rivers was sitting behind the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and both were white in the face while listening to his remarks.
And now, the hon. member for Three Rivers is telling me tonight that I am reading my speech.


Léon Balcer: It would be better for you if you read it.


David Réal Caouette: Should the hon. member for Three Rivers be aware of the situation, I can meet him anywhere in the province of Quebec. He is the deputy leader, no, not the deputy leader but perhaps the deputy leader of the Conservative party in Quebec, and I am ready to meet him anywhere in the province.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been brought to the hon. member's attention that he should deal with the matter before the house. Whether he wishes to treat this as a serious problem or whether the members of the Liberal party who are laughing at the antics going on in the comer, wish to treat this as a serious matter, that is for them to decide. However, we should not be wasting our time listening to what is going on now. Your Honour should press the ruling you have just made that the hon. member should stick to the point before the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the point raised by the hon. member is of course well taken. As he has mentioned, the Chair has brought to the attention of the hon. member

for Villeneuve the fact that he should limit his remarks to the subject matter before the house at this time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to agree that I should limit my remarks to the resolution presently under consideration, but I would ask the hon. member who just rose on a point of order to inform his colleagues of his own political party to sit still and quiet and be at least polite in this house.


Mr. Winkler:: I have yet to hear you say anything relevant.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I hear the whip (Mr. Winkler) of the Conservative party objecting to our remarks. Let me finish my speech on the resolution, and I wish the Conservatives would shut up.
Mr. Speaker, according to the Leader of the Opposition, the people have to be consulted through a referendum. In view of that suggestion, I shall ask the Leader of the Opposition and the members of his party, those for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) included, why they did not resort to that referendum when they were in power in Ottawa and free to do so, while they enjoyed the greatest majority a political party has ever had in the federal parliament? Why did they not resort to that referendum or plebiscite that the Leader of the Opposition now asks of the party in office?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You defeated us, with the Liberals.


David Réal Caouette: Today, the Conservatives come up with proposals they never had the courage to introduce themselves while they could-


Michael Starr: I wonder if the hon. member for Villeneuve would allow a question?


David Réal Caouette: If you want to ask me a question right after my speech, you will have one half hour to ask me questions.
It is not because the hon. member is not my friend, he is one of my best friends and I am one of his.


Michael Starr: I object; it is the worst thing that could happen to me.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to silence the stupid people who interrupt from time to time in this chamber?
As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we will vote for the motion introduced by the government and will not be afraid to assume our responsibility for that action before our electors.
We intended to move an amendment to that motion, or an amendment to the present amendment, in order to propose the flag that I had this afternoon in the house. We will not do so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: We will not do it because we are anxious for a distinctive national flag to be adopted in this house for the whole of Canada. We do not have the right to delay the adoption of a distinctive national flag, and I am not saying that because I am a Liberal, far from it; I may be one in the true sense of the word but not in the shrunken sense it has at the level of a political party.
Mr. Speaker, we will fully support the first government resolution and we will vote against the Conservative amendment because it is meaningless, since that party did not take its responsibilities when it was sitting on your right a few years back.
We will vote and we will not be afraid to take our responsibilities. That is why, Mr. Speaker, our group will vote against the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm will no doubt join us in that respect.
On the other hand, we are not satisfied with the proposed design; we would have preferred another one. Still, before the 10.30 edition of the C.B.C. news last night, I saw on television the new maple leaf flag flying from some flagpole and I must admit that it did attract attention. The flag is a means of creating, not so much pride, at home, but a deep satisfaction in having a typically Canadian flag, representing all sections of Canada and not only part of it.
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, when we came into this house with the miniature design of a flag we were favouring, I heard a Conservative member say that we only had a rag to offer. I shall answer him exactly as Moliere says in "Les Femmes savantes": "Rag it is, if you call it that way, but my rag is dear to me." The rag that the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada has presented, is agreeable 20220-277
Canadian Flag
to us; it is dear to us because it represents the Canadian spirit.
But we can neither imagine nor accept that the Conservatives or the non-Canadian elements-I repeat it, they are not Canadians- object to a distinctive national flag.
This emblem which we want for Canada is the one advocated by La Ligue du Canada and the Native Sons of Canada. It will not be accepted, we will not put it forward as a subamendment or an amendment, because we are looking forward to the disposal of the flag issue, and we feel that there are more important problems to deal with in Canada. The flag must mean something for Canadians and we do not want to see an unemployed strolling about with a flag which for him would mean poverty amidst plenty.
The right hon. Prime Minister expressed it very well yesterday afternoon, when he said: Not only the flag, but also the fight against undeserved poverty in a Canada of plenty. In that respect, we shall support the Prime Minister without reserve.
Yet, at the same time, I shall ask the Prime Minister to listen to us and to consider the suggestions we have made during the past three years in the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt the hon. member, because his time expired at eight thirty o'clock. I thought I might grant, him about five additional minutes, considering the various points of order and questions of privilege which were raised during his remarks.	'
Uniess he is just about to finish his remarks^ I would suggest that the hon. member give his place to another member.


David Réal Caouette: Only two minutes more, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Speaker, no, no, no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Favreau:: To my mind, it would be in order that the five parties grant the hon. member another five minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve will admit that he cannot continue his remarks without the unanimous consent of the house. He has been refused this unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes, yes.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, no.


David Réal Caouette: I think I have unanimous consent-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Speaker.

Canadian Flag


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would be permitted two more minutes so that I could ask him the question I intended to ask him during his speech, when he said I would have half an hour in which to ask a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it clear the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the house to continue now?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member does not have unanimous consent. The hon. member for North York.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Could I know who objects to my going on for two more minutes so as to conclude my remarks? I have seen nobody objecting to that.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I object to the hon. member for Villeneuve continuing to read his speech.


Mr. John H. Addison (York North):: Mr. Speaker, in the twenty fifth parliament of Canada I had the opportunity in my maiden speech of following the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). This is now the twenty sixth parliament of Canada and, as I watched the spectacle across from me this evening, while it seemed to me my maiden speech was a very important one, the speech I hope to be able to make this evening will be perhaps the most important I shall ever make in this house.
I represent the riding of York North and in it, from north to south, we have the towns of Sutton, Newmarket, Aurora and Richmond Hill. Many of these towns were settled by United Empire Loyalists who left the United States during the rebellion against Britain, to live in a land loyal to British tradition and constitutional monarchy. These people preferred king and country to the so-called war of independence. They settled in Canada, and Canada has become strong with their strength and courage.
When the Loyalists came to Canada they bore with them the flag of union, the union jack, and it flies proudly today throughout my riding. The descendants of these people are still loyal to those traditions even today. In my riding we recall the indomitable little firebrand and rebel, William Lyon Mackenzie, our loyal representatives over the years, Aylesworth, Mulock, King, all leaders in government, pathfinders over the years,

reformers loyal to the traditions of the flag of their day.
Flags, Mr. Speaker, are a strange creation. They are used as merely pieces of silk held aloft in some instances to identify the status of a chief, to mark the arrival of a leader, or to denote the arrival of an enemy.
They were first used in India and China, primarily for the purpose of identification. Other uses arose. They were used to show the forces of the leader. In medieval times, the flag was the first point of attack. When the flag had fallen, consternation among the flagless army ensued, and the battle was soon lost. In victory, the flag rallied the victorious army to the chase to press on to the eventual rout of the enemy. Moreover, at sea the flag was more than a rallying point; it became a method of signalling. All this, of course, is aside from mere decoration and display for which flags have been used. What English seaman has forgotten the white naval ensign of Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar? One of my hon. friends says it was the red ensign. In fact, that ensign is a good example of a flag which served as identification of the status of a commander, as a signal, as a rallying point and later for decoration and display after the battle.
In one word, then, Mr. Speaker, flags have become for us after all these uses, symbols. They become the physical manifestations of the emotions for which they stand. They remind us of our past, indicate our present status and point with pride to the future.
One of the flags I intend to vote for when the final division bells ring is the union jack. It reminds Canadians of their past traditions. It indicates our present status in the commonwealth of nations and points with pride to our future close association with Great Britain. The other flag for which I intend to vote will be a distinctive Canadian flag which will remind us of our Canadian past with a world recognized symbol of that past, the maple leaf; it will show our present status as an independent nation, being, in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), a flag which is Canada's own and only Canada's. Moreover, it will point with pride to our future as a united nation-one Canada from sea to sea, strong, powerful and free.
I wish to direct my remarks to the amendment which has been proposed by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), that is, the proposal to submit this question to a national referendum or plebiscite. I am astonished that the Leader of the Opposition

should have made this suggestion because as late as last Wednesday speaking on C.B.C. television, he had this to say:
Put this matter of the flag before the Canadian people and I fear the result.
On the same program, he said: "You say, should it go to the Canadian people? I say, no."


An hon. Member:: You wouldn't be quoting him out of context, would you?


John Hollings Addison: For someone who is well versed in British traditions as well as in the parliamentary traditions of this country to propose a referendum, is astonishing. A referendum strikes directly at the entire concept of British parliamentary democracy. As the encyclopaedia of Canada says at Volume 5, page 232:
A referendum is a constitutional device whereby a question with which the legislature does not feel itself capable of dealing is referred to the electorate in a popular vote. It has been borrowed from the United States.
The same encyclopaedia concludes:
It is clear, however, that both the referendum and the initiative are alien to the spirit of British parliamentary government.
Why are they alien? The answer can be found in the words of Professor Dicey, the late distinguished expert on constitutional law and practice. Professor Dicey says this:
The referendum diminishes the importance of parliamentary debate and thereby detracts from the influence of parliament. That this must be so admits of no denial; a veto, whether it be exercised by a king or by an electorate, lessens the power of the legislature.
Of course, it is easy for us to see why the referendum has been used so often in the United States. There the division of powers is definite. In the federal government, and in each and every state government, the legislative branch is distinct from the executive branch. The president is separated from congress; a governor is separated from the state legislature. Thus the referendum or plebiscite is resorted to. Incidentally, the Encyclopaedia Canadiana, volume 8 defines plebiscite this way:
A device for ascertaining the opinion of the electorate on a question, but not involving any legal obligation on the legislative body to act upon it.
When the executive branch and the legislative branch in the United States disagreed, resort was made to the people to solve the disagreement and the public at large was asked to vote. The executive arm would request the referendum, the people would vote, 20220-277J
Canadian Flag
and then the legislature would be forced to act in accord with the simple yes or no of the people. That may be compatible with the separation of powers in the United States. It is not compatible with the British and Canadian parliamentary and ministerial tradition. As the distinguished professor of government, William B. Munro said in his book "American Influences on Canadian Government":
In Canada a provincial legislature is elected, and a ministry is placed in power to carry out the will of the legislature. If, then, the people can directly initiate legislation, if they can directly enact or reject legislation, the whole principle of unified ministerial responsibility is seriously impaired. For a ministry cannot serve two masters -the legislative body insisting on one thing, and the electorate requiring something different.
Our system of government is based upon the direct responsibility of the ministry to the legislature and of the legislature to the people. There is no "double harness" here; a ministry does not ride the legislature and ride the people at one and the same time. The ministry proposes to parliament; parliament acts, and if parliament does not approve, the ministry tenders its resignation and the people vote for a new leadership. It is, I think, significant that in the 1920's-and this will interest hon. gentleman opposite in particular-the Progressive Conservative premier of Ontario, Hon. George Ferguson, announced that there would be no more popular votes on the liquor question in the province but that the legislature and cabinet would deal with the issue and take full responsibility for it-as ought to be done in any scheme of government based on the direct responsibility of the ministry to the legislature, and of the legislature to the people. This government, too, has that responsibility, and if parliament disagrees, the government will resign; or if the people disapprove, they may vote out the government at the next general election. But a parliament is elected to decide all questions of government and take responsibility for its decisions.
One party is given a mandate by the people on the basis of that party's leadership and the platform presented at the time of the election; another party forms an opposition, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, to play its role in that responsibility. A referendum isolates an issue; demands a simple yes or no. At times of great emotion-and any referendum on the question of national symbols would be a time of great emotion-a simple yes or no cannot decide governmental policy. At times such as this we have all been

Canadian Flag
subjected to the pressure groups that lobby here in the house. A referendum gives pressure groups time to organize, to spend a great deal of money and further cloud the issue by excessive emotionalism. The balkanization of this country would be a sad sight; the spectacle would become demeaning to parliament, because the legislature would be ignored in this particular process. If we had a referendum or a plebiscite the men elected to this legislature would be left to stand and watch, to abdicate their responsibility. The cabinet would be left in an invidious position as well. It must make a proposal under a plebiscite, a proposal it was elected to implement, not to the legislature, not to the people's representatives, you and I,- and written in such a way as to demand a yes or no. It must bypass parliament and go directly to the people and then tell parliament, in effect, the result.
It is little wonder, then, that the referendum has almost never been used in Canada- I think, twice-and I believe never in British political history. I would like to quote from the Prime Minister's speech of yesterday, as reported at page 4319 of Hansard, when he referred to the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his remarks on January 26, 1942 concerning a plebiscite. The present Leader of the Opposition had this to say:
Allow the members of parliament to vote on this question. Do not submit the question to the people of Canada, for in my opinion, the taking of a plebiscite at this time may well destroy the unity of Canada.
Then the Prime Minister said yesterday:
Later, when the decision was made, he said this on February 25, 1942, as reported at pages 836 and 837 of Hansard:
"A plebiscite is to be taken regardless of the fact that in the long history of Great Britain, with all the constitutional changes which have taken place, no government has ever submitted any matter to the people by way of plebiscite."


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: What did the Liberals do in that period?


John Hollings Addison: They were not very successful, I think, as you probably realize. In reply to the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), I am speaking now of plebiscites, not the government in question. I should like to quote Professor Munro again, speaking of the role of the provinces, and his remarks are also attributable to the central government. I would like to place this on the record:
In the Canadian provinces, where the ministers are responsible to the legislature, and when a

general election can be held at any moment... there is scarcely a single valid argument that can be put forth for direct legislation. There are no plebiscites in England where the theory of ministerial responsibility is understood and appreciated in its various implications. The practice of referring issues directly to the people is an Importation from the United States where ministerial responsibility does not exist.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to quote excerpts from a television interview of last Wednesday, June 10, of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, who said this:
But this is not a matter for an election. This would solve nothing. As a matter of fact in parliament today it is parliament's responsibility to took after this matter, providing we could come to a reasonable degree of agreement.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I reject the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is no surprise over here.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We kind of expected that.


John Hollings Addison: I reject it because, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, it is demoralizing and demeans the parliament elected to consider the actions of the government of the day. We were all elected to be the people's representatives and decision makers on behalf of the people. In fact, those who are elected to serve Canada in parliament owe the electors more than the advocacy of non-controversial ideas. We members of parliament owe Canada our best judgment, and we fail Canada if we fail to exercise that judgment or if we pass our responsibility for judgment back to the electors who sent us to parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Hollings Addison: The government is the
Queen's representative and the ministers of the crown. Parliament sits in judgment on the ministry, and parliament decides whether or not the ministery may continue with the confidence of the people's representatives. This parliament has had submitted to it one resolution on the flag issue, which was subsequently divided by the decision of the Speaker yesterday. The ministry has met its obligation to submit a proposal for a distinctive Canadian flag to parliament, and parliament, in the British and Canadian tradition, must now decide. The leader of our party has campaigned on a distinctive Canadian flag in the last two elections.


An hon. Member:: Where?


John Hollings Addison: It has been a prominent plank in our party's platform for the last four years.


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


John Hollings Addison: Later, Mr. Speaker. Our responsibility was to submit the design to parliament-and this we have done. For myself, I advocate a flag, as I said previously, which is Canada's own and only Canada's; a distinctive Canadian flag which cannot be mistaken for that of any other country; a flag which represents the past, symbolizes the present and points to the future. The flag of the union, the union jack, is much loved in this country and I will vote to retain it in our land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: What about the red ensign?


John Hollings Addison: But I will vote, too, for our own Canadian flag, one that I know will be flown throughout my country with pride, respect and patriotism.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member will accept a question now.


John Hollings Addison: Yes.


Malcolm MacInnis: In closing his remarks the hon. member continually referred to a distinctive Canadian flag. I would ask him to review the notes that he just read, and he will find that his original remark was "one of the flags that I intend to vote for". Then he went on to speak about another flag. How can the hon. member open a speech by referring to one of the flags he intends to vote for, then speak about another flag, and close by referring to "a distinctive Canadian flag"?


John Hollings Addison: I intend to vote for the distinctive Canadian flag put forward by the government in this resolution, and for retaining the flying of the union jack.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, one of the statements coming forth from Liberal spokesmen today which will be heard over and over again almost to the point where you will consider one parroting the other is to the effect that "I will vote for a distinctive Canadian flag". Mr. Speaker, flying over the peace tower at this time is a distinctive Canadian flag. It is distinctive because it represents our past, our history and tradition, the sacrifices our people have made in war and peace, the founding cultures of our nation-a flag that is representative of everything that is great in this country.
Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: No.


Robert Carman Coates: I hear "No", Mr. Speaker. That is the "no" of those who are now on the road, not only to destroying our flag but to removing this country from the British commonwealth of nations. That is the "no" of men who have no respect apparently for our past, for our British tradition, for the things that we hold dear. These are the men who are now marching us down the road to republicanism. The republic is next. This is the thing that the people of this nation fear. This is the thing that the people of this nation must face up to. If they say "yes" to the elimination of the union jack from our flag, what will they say "yes" to next week? That is the question I should like answered.
With regard to three maple leaves, if this party opposite is so terribly concerned and dedicated to maple leaves, why not "The Maple Leaf Forever" as our national anthem? We hear nothing of that, not a word. The maple leaf on our flag is representative of nothing; it is representative of nothing of our past-of our past tradition, of our past history, of our association with either Britain or France.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we also hear a great deal of talk about this being an election promise. This was one of those election promises which has to be fulfilled. The Liberals told the Canadian people they were going to give them a new flag within two years, and they have to do it. What about the two ministers of agriculture? What about the $2 wheat? What about the-


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that what is before the house at present is the amendment moved yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, which was accepted by Mr. Speaker and, since there was no appeal from the ruling, it was therefore also accepted by the house.
This amendment deletes all the words after "that".


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think I have the right to state my point of order. My point of order is the following. An amendment is before the house.

My point of order is to the effect-

Canadian Flag


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: You are just wasting time, that is all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely we on this side can speak as well.


Guy Favreau: My point of order is to the effect that what is before this house is the amendment which was presented yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker). This amendment bears on one point, and it is the following. Must the procedure to be followed with respect to the adoption of a Canadian flag be the adoption of a resolution by this house; or must the procedure be by way of plebiscite?
The hon. gentleman, who I admit has been interrupted by my point of order, began his speech and was not interrupted by a point of order, I think he will agree, until the last part of it, when he said two things. First of all, he said that the question was, what flag should be adopted; and second, he said that the three maple leaves flag was one which meant nothing. He thus engaged upon a full discussion, not of the amendment which is before this house but of the very merits of the resolution which has been presented by the government, and which seeks the authority of this house to take the means to adopt as the official flag of Canada a flag with three red maple leaves on a white field. Mr. Speaker, I say that the amendment, by removing the original resolution and limiting the discussion to the question of procedure to be adopted, has clearly put before this house one question which this house must answer-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Political trick number one.


Guy Favreau: -and that is, what procedure we have to adopt. If the answer is in the affirmative-that is, if the amendment is accepted by the house-then there is no resolution. But if the answer-


Mr. Lamb:: Mr. Speaker, this argument which the minister is making here tonight is not to the point at all. The minister got up to ask a question and is now making a speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, the minister did not rise to ask a question but to raise a point of order. I would suggest that the minister be allowed to make his point of order. If other hon. members want to comment upon it and offer advice for the guidance of the Chair I will be very pleased, of course, to hear their comments.


Guy Favreau: If the amendment is negatived, Mr. Speaker, then we will have to deal with the merits-


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


John Whitney Pickersgill: There cannot be a question of privilege on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member allow the minister to conclude his point of order first, after which he might raise his question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: I wish to raise the question of privilege now. My question of privilege is that in the point of order the minister is raising we do not need a political speech from him to decide whether or not the particular point of order he has raised is a proper one. I submit that the point of order does not stand, and the precedent for that statement will be found only a couple of weeks ago when the member for-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I feel that the hon. member perhaps has a point but it seems to me it is the type of point that he might make after we have heard the Minister of Justice out. The hon. member may be right. I am not saying that I disagree with what he is saying now, but I suggest that he give the Minister of Justice the opportunity to submit his point of order, after which I shall be very pleased to hear any arguments the hon. member may wish to submit in opposition to the position suggested by the minister.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member who has just spoken has already understood my point of order quite well because he thinks he is in a position to establish that it does not stand. Therefore it must be clear enough as I have presented it so far.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the minister has now directed a personal remark to me, and as you and every member of the house know any remarks made in this house should be directed to the Chair. The minister has directed a personal remark across the floor to me, and it is apparent to me that he has not quite got clear what the Minister of Transport told him to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Justice.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to admit-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the minister that it might be of assistance to the Chair if he would come quickly to the point of order.


Guy Favreau: My point is quite simple. It is that we should not on the present amendment deal with the merits of the main resolution. The speaker preceding the one who was interrupted by my point of order made it clear that he was limiting himself to discussing the matter of whether or not we should have a referendum.
One reason why I think the discussion should be limited to the amendment, as a matter of procedure, is that this question must be voted upon before we get to the merits of the main question before the house. Otherwise it will be impossible (a) to get to that point and (b) to give any other member who wishes to move an amendment, if there are any, the opportunity to do so, because we will not be able to settle the amendment and vote thereon until such time as we are at the end of the debate on the main resolution and in a position to vote on the amendment and on the resolution itself, which I think is wrong from the standpoint of the procedure of the house.
I suggest with due deference that Your Honour should rule whether or not in discussing the amendment hon. members are to be allowed to deal fully with the subject matter of the main resolution, that is, the merits of the flag question and the design of the flag or whether, subject, of course, to reasonable flexibility, they should not be basically contained within a discussion of the subject matter of the amendment itself.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, without going into the question of what has gone before and the remarks of previous speakers who have roamed the field extensively, may I point out citation 201 on page 168 of Beau-chesne, which Your Honour has no doubt already found. At the bottom of the page the following appears after a reference to the question of an amendment to the main motion:
In that case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
I think it is very clear that when speaking on an amendment we are also speaking on the main motion. As long as I have been here that has been very clearly understood.
Canadian Flag


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice proves beyond any doubt that, in some Montreal ridings, people are not as quick as elsewhere in the province or in the country.
The suggestion of the minister to the effect that we should deal only with the amendment seems to me quite irregular, since this afternoon the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) as well as a representative of the Thompson group and myself have had the opportunity to discuss part (a) of the resolution, and also the Liberal representative who spoke after me.
Now, if the discussion is restricted to the amendment, this means that once the vote is taken on the amendment, everybody will start again to speak on the main motion. So, I am of the opinion that the best way to avoid as much as possible any waste of time of the house is to allow a general discussion on both the amendment and part (a) of the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I admire the objectivity of the hon. member for Ville-neuve, but I must tell him that if, this afternoon, we deliberately decided not to interrupt the leaders of the New Democratic party, the Social Credit and the Ralliement Creditiste, it is precisely because we were of the opinion that it would have been unfair not to grant the advantages the leaders of the Liberal party and the Conservative party had enjoyed yesterday, in dealing with the whole question. I feel that it would not have been appropriate to interrupt leaders of the three other opposition parties, merely because the leader of the official opposition had moved an amendment. Furthermore, I spoke about this to the house leaders of the various parties. I told them that as soon as the first speaker following the last opposition party leader would rise to speak, I would request Mr. Speaker to limit the debate to the amendment moved by the leader of the official opposition last night.
I have not raised a point of order sooner only to allow the leaders of the three other opposition parties to benefit by the same advantages that were granted the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties. I believe that each of the house leaders can certify the accuracy of my statement.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the point of order. If the

Canadian Flag
Minister of Justice is sincere in what he says, that special consideration is being given to the leaders-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Villeneuve is rising on a question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege.
I was unaware of the meeting which took place among the various house leaders or group leaders, to the effect that the party leaders would be entitled to discuss just about any subject on the main motion. Consequently, I wish to withdraw the charge I made a while ago against the Minister of Justice, and I concur in his statement to the effect that all members should abide by the understanding arrived at this noon between the representatives of the various parties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to hon. members that the turn the argument is now taking is rather irrelevant and has nothing to do with the point of order originally submitted by the Minister of Justice. The hon. member for Ontario.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order. If the Minister of Justice was sincere in stating that an arrangement was made or an understanding was reached that the leaders of the various groups in the house would have a wider field of discussion on this matter, not entirely pertinent to the amendment as he now suggests, why did he not rise in his place on a point of order when the hon. member for York North was speaking?


Guy Favreau: I want to dispel any misunderstanding. I never said that there was an arrangement or an understanding. All I said was, and I think I will be confirmed by all the house leaders, that it would be advisable, the decent thing to do, to allow the other leaders the same range of discussion as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in their speeches. One of the parties did not agree and it was for that reason I said a few minutes ago, in order to correct the leader of the Ralliement Cre-ditiste, that if I did not object to his not being limited it was because I thought this was the proper thing to do for the leaders.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice has just indicated to the house

that an arrangement had been made. Of course, not all the house leaders agreed to it, and we will go along with that. He has called to our attention that special privileges were to be extended to the party leaders. Since when has he taken it upon himself to deny to every member of this house the same right? We all arrived here by the same method and we are all entitled to the same privileges. The Prime Minister said that there would be freedom of debate for every hon. member in this house, and what the Minister of Justice is suggesting now would deny that right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The remarks made by the hon. member confirm the suggestion I made just a moment ago that we are getting away from the point which should be decided at this moment as to whether or not a legitimate point of order was raised by the Minister of Justice. I would appreciate any further comments on that specific point.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the point of order made by the Minister of Justice would have had considerable force if it had been made at the right time. In other words, I would think that when we have an amendment before this house it would make a lot of sense if we were to discuss the amendment. This does not appear to be the rule. 1 further suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that to change the rules in the middle of the debate to extend privileges to certain members that are not available to other members would be a serious mistake.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is going to follow the argument put forward by the last person who spoke, I would be quite content. However, in case you are still in doubt, I want to support what he just said. You simply cannot change the rules part way through a debate.
Let me say that there is no misunderstanding. The government house leader has mentioned an attempted arrangement amongst the house leaders, and I think in doing so he has gone beyond what he should do. Why does he mention in the house that there was a meeting of house leaders and one did not agree? Well, all right, I did not agree. Let us be frank about the thing. I did not agree because you cannot impose this type of closure on members of this house. May I direct your attention to the rule of relevancy and the comments on relevancy on page 111 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition:

Relevancy is not easy to define. A wrong comprehension of it may have a serious effect on the freedom of speech. Members are often deprived of their right to speak on the pretext that their remarks are irrelevant when as a matter of fact they refer to matters perhaps remote but yet related, even indirectly, to the question under debate. In borderline cases the member should be given the benefit of the doubt. A great deal of latitude must be allowed in the House of Commons which is a forum where every phase of public affairs can be discussed and every member has the right to be heard, even if in doing so he sometimes disregards the rigidity of procedure.
Finally, may I say that yesterday Mr. Speaker dealt with the subject of relevancy as recorded on page 4307 of Hansard. You can read there where he said it was difficult to-


An hon. Member:: Read it all.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Shall I read it all?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Prime Minister was mixing up the two resolutions, (a) and (b) and a point was raised. Then, Mr. Speaker said this:
The point before the house is a flag for Canada. The second resolution deals with the union jack, and I have suggested to the house that the joint resolution, if you want to call it that, be separated. We are now dealing with the first part, the flag for Canada, I admit that in dealing with this subject it is very difficult to rule out any reference to the past history of this country. You cannot just automatically forget the stirring years of the past history of our country, and therefore it seems to me that the Prime Minister, within reasonable limits and within the rule of relevancy, is entitled to make reference to things that have gone on in the past, which I presume might involve a reference to the union jack and what it stands for.
Yesterday, sir, the Speaker allowed freedom of discussion and a wide ranging debate, such as was allowed today, by those who have taken part in the debate up to this point. I believe that is where the matter should stand for the future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word on the very point that has been raised by hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Yesterday, we had a most unusual procedure adopted of having a motion made by the government divided so that the house could express itself clearly on each half of that proposition. The right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition, and who is not here tonight, took exception-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Where is your leader?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is quite evident he is not here today and he said he was not going to be 20220-278
Canadian Flag
here. The right hon. gentleman I am sure would agree with me if he were here-


David Vaughan Pugh: I rise on a point of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Am I not allowed freedom of speech in this house, about which we just heard?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; I understand the Minister of Transport is now on a point of order. Perhaps he might be allowed to finish his point, then I will be glad to hear the hon. member on his point of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that while a point of order can be raised about a question of privilege, a question of privilege cannot be raised about a point of order. There have been many decisions to that effect.
Yesterday the right hon. gentleman opposite objected to my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, making any reference to the question which was separated from the question which we originally started to debate. He got up immediately and sought to circumscribe the Prime Minister's speech in that way. While the Speaker did say that there might be some little latitude allowed in making casual references, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre read only that part which suited him. The Speaker made it quite clear the Prime Minister could not go on and debate the second part of the motion, I think it was called.


An hon. Member:: Who is debating it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment which struck out the whole of the motion that was then before the house and substituted an entirely different question. Surely, sir, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we cannot be permitted to debate these two closely interrelated propositions that were originally put on the order paper by the Prime Minister, then surely when a motion that is clearly different and distinct from the motion which was moved by the Prime Minister is before the house, on the very basis on which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked for a division, this proposition should be debated and decided. After it has been decided, if it is decided in the negative, we will have an opportunity to debate the other questions without having the two intermingled and confused. This, I understood was the purpose of the original division which His Honour made yesterday. It seems to me that if His Honour, the Speaker, be right in the decision

Canadian Flag
he made yesterday, then it is equally right these two distinct questions should be debated and decided separately.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I think sometimes the Minister of Transport inadvertently- maybe he is not thinking-uses words which he would otherwise probably regret. He made a statement in regard to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) knowing full well that everyone in the house knows where the Leader of the Opposition is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is he?


David Vaughan Pugh: He used words which were intemperate and it is to these words I object, that the Leader of the Opposition is not now leading his party. I think the minister should withdraw those words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say he was not
leading his party. If I did, I take that back. I thought I said he wasn't in his place, and he certainly isn't in his place and I don't know where he is. If the hon. gentleman wants to tell us where he is, I am sure we would be interested.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Where is the Prime Minister?


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, if I could revert to the point of order just before Your Honour makes a decision, we had a wide ranging debate far from the point of order which was originally raised. In view of that I would suggest that, when you do make your decision, the 27 minutes which I believe have been taken up on this matter will be accorded to the hon. member who was stopped when he was making a perfectly legitimate speech.
fTranslation]


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to say a few words on the point of order. It is clear that we are now engaged in a very important debate since the point is to choose a national flag.
Yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, incidentally, is not in his seat at this time, proposed his amendment, he gave a completely different course to the debate introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
The Prime Minister had the opportunity to discuss the matter of the flag generally. The Leader of the Opposition, who is not in his seat now, had the same opportunity, but he changed the course of the debate by proposing an amendment on a completely different matter: the referendum.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Gilles Grégoire: This morning, seeing the turn things were taking, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) called us together to ask us whether we would accept that the party leaders should continue to discuss the matter of the flag generally, which was extremely polite on his part. It was proper, during this debate, that each party leader should be able to express the opinion of his party, as the Leader of the Opposition who, incidentally, is not in the house at this time, put forward the attitude of the Conservative party on that matter.
We agreed that after the party leaders had made their speeches, everything would come back to normal and other speakers would discuss the amendment and once the amendment had been rejected-because I am convinced it will be-everyone could rise again to discuss the general matter of the flag.
Mr. Speaker, it was not necessarily an agreement in the proper sense of the word but an arrangement among us. Unfortunately, the house leader of the Conservative party was not there because, as a child who has been deprived of his sugar, he has been sulky for the past three months and does not attend our meetings any more. That is why he could not enter into an agreement on behalf of his party. But in the present situation, I maintain that we must go along with the standing orders and deal with the plebiscite.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be insulted by this hon. member from Lapointe. Will he withdraw the statement he made about me a minute ago, or does he lack the courage to do so?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asks me to withdraw the words by which I was saying that he had not attended our meetings for the last two months. If he asks me to withdraw that, I call to witness all the other house leaders that he did not attend those meetings for two months, nor this morning.
If that is what he wants me to withdraw- [Text]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your decision and would like to say that not only have we a split resolution but I have a split speech. About a half an hour ago, when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) tried to delay me, I was attempting to indicate what I felt about the resolution and the amendment. I was pointing out the reasons surrounding the introduction of this resolution into the house, and the great desire on the part of the government to ask parliament all of a sudden to confirm a new flag design.
I might refer back to not very long ago, to the day when the Prime Minister came into the house and outlined the priorities in legislation which he considered were necessary for the house to consider before we could recess.
At that time the flag resolution was not even considered a priority piece of legislation. All of a sudden, for some reason best known to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), parliament is confronted with this emotional debate at a time when many, if not most, of the promises made by the government during the election campaign of April, 1963 remain unfulfilled. I say: why this great haste all of a sudden? Why this argument that the government must implement a particular promise within the time limit indicated when it was in opposition, because it was a solemn commitment which must be undertaken? When was this solemn commitment given, and where, and how often during the election campaigns of 1962 and 1963? I should like to refer to an interview which the Prime Minister, when leader of the opposition, gave in my constituency at Amherst, Nova Scotia. A number of questions were asked him by a

Canadian Flag
reporter regarding the flag matter. Among the questions put to him at that time was the following:
Do you think Quebec will oppose anything except a flag with the fleur-de-lis in it? Must they have this part in it?
The Prime Minister's reply was:
Well, we would have our Quebec ministers in our cabinet decide what the design would be and they would make their views very clear at that time, I am sure.
In the same interview, the right hon. gentleman stated that he would not be mentioning the flag, or this new proposed flag, when he spoke in Amherst that evening. Well, I am afraid statements of this kind could be forthcoming from many areas of Canada. Indeed, my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out last night that the British Columbia section of the Liberal party, when putting out its program, omitted any reference to a new flag because of the known feeling about a new flag design in that province. To say that we are today discussing the flag issue because it was a commitment made to the electors in 1963 is in my opinion the height of ridiculousness-nothing could be farther from the truth.
I think the emergency committee to save the Canadian red ensign which signed an open letter to the Prime Minister sets this point out very well when it states:
It is said that our representatives were elected to decide the flag. There was more than one plank in the Liberal platform, and many who voted for your party's flag resolution, sir, did not dream that a "distinctive flag" must exclude all symbols of our heritage. Surely, most Canadians rejected a flag change when the majority rejected the party that proposed it. The reference in the platform to a "distinctive" flag was misleading. A flag "distinctive" from what? The adjective is irrelevant to the debate. It is the right slogan for the wrong battle-a battle won years ago when Canadians rightly demanded a flag distinct from the great union flag of Britain. The resulting "distinctive" flag was, of course, the Canadian fed ensign, which was so described in the order in council of 1945. The ensign, bearing the shield of Canada, cannot be confused with any other flag on earth. We are disturbed by the cranked-up campaign to exchange this distinctive flag, rich in meaning, for one created out of whole cloth which many millions of us think distinctly undistinguished.
Surely a government sincerely concerned for national unity would honour and perpetuate the graphic symbols of both French and British founding peoples. The present government, apparently unable to reconcile the legitimate claims of each, is ducking the problem by erasing the memory of both. Three quarters of the United States flag is devoted to reminding Americans that they began as 13 British colonies. Unlike Dahomey, Gabon, Mali, and the Malagasy republic, Canada was not born yesterday. We neither need nor want a

brand new flag. Should you doubt this, sir, we urge you to put it to the test. Only a plebiscite will relieve the building bitterness of a victimized majority.
Canadians know that a parliament, precariously balanced, should not decide this issue. They know that members are not being asked to vote for a flag, but against an election. They know that a plebiscite will clear the air and unite all who honour the democratic process. They know that this issue, unlike most others, requires no arcane knowledge and no deep study. It is an issue on which every Canadian has an opinion, and should have a vote.
What do Canadians have to say? I should like to quote from some editorials in various newspapers across this country which feel that a plebiscite is the only fair way in which to handle this question at the present time. Before I do so, I should like to say this: It can never be said that the Prime Minister did not have every possible opportunity to keep this matter out of politics, to keep it from becoming a partisan political debate. He was given the opportunity. Indeed, he appeared to have taken the opportunity, and then, for some reason best known to himself, he backed down. He half committed himself to a plebiscite in this house by giving each and every member the right to vote in favour of the red ensign, or of this new maple leaf design which he considers to be a distinctive flag. The Prime Minister need only have selected one of his members, allowed him to introduce the resolution, and said to the country: There will be no vote of confidence on this matter; it is a matter which each member of parliament can decide freely and on the basis of his knowledge, both personal and with regard to his constituency. If this had been done there would be no one in this country today asking for a national plebiscite. The people would feel that their representatives would be responsible enough to make the fairest possible decision.
But what has happened? The whip has been cracked; the people of this country have been told it is a flag which the Prime Minister has indicated is his personal choice-and let there be no mistake about that. Mr. Val Sears in a column in the Toronto Star on May 20 last, pointed this out clearly and concisely when he said:
As drinks were served and the newspapermen nibbled on sandwiches, Mr. Pearson brought out several flag designs on cardboard, selected one with a cluster of three maple leaves and two blue bands and placed it on the mantelpiece as his choice.
He said he was prepared to have the government stand or fall on the maple leaf flag.

The Prime Minister was careful, however, to make clear that the flag on the mantel was his personal choice.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be everybody's personal choice, apparently, unless Canadians are given some opportunity to indicate what their personal choice might be; because we are told that we either vote for it or the public will not only have a plebiscite as to the maple leaf design but they will have a plebiscite as to the government of this country. And even at this late date, if the Prime Minister had any wisdom left I would say he would not want to let the Canadian people make that decision at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: What do the newspapers of this country say? Apparently the Prime Minister is becoming more selective as to newspapers and newspapermen than he was when he was leader of the opposition, because I understood only eight reporters were invited to this little get-together. These were eight very carefully selected gentlemen. I know most of them, and they are very nice gentlemen; but I understand there are 120 such gentlemen in the press gallery and I would think they would be somewhat offended at not having been invited.


An hon. Member:: And a young lady.


Robert Carman Coates: Yes; not only one young lady, but a very attractive young lady. If the Prime Minister had been wise he would have invited her. Certainly had I been the prime minister I would have seen that the young lady was there too. However, seeing that the Prime Minister is selective in the reporters he chooses, he might also be as selective in the newspapers he now reads. With this thought in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the views of a few of the newspaper editors in this country on the record so the Prime Minister may take a look at what they suggest and how they view this autocratic attitude he has with regard to his personal pennant. The daily Gleaner of May 27, 1964, had this to say:
The only logical way the Pearson government could get out of the flag impasse in which it now finds itself would be to submit the red ensign and the maple leaf designs to a national referendum, with the winner automatically becoming Canada's flag.
We go to the other end of the country, where the Vancouver Province says this about Mr. Pearson. The heading to the article
Canadian Flag
is "Mr. Pearson flirts with political suicide". The concluding part of the article is as follows:
Mr. Pearson's Liberal predecessors, Mackenzie King and Louis St. Laurent, understood the political danger of trying to invent a new Canadian flag. They knew that such a move would do more harm than good to national unity and they steered well away from the flag controversy.
Now Mr. Pearson has headed directly into the hurricane zone.
The winner of the Nobel peace prize has become a contender for another distinction-that of kindling the worst racial conflict in our country's history.
There is not much talk about national unity in that editorial, Mr. Speaker. And for my good friend from Bonavista-Twillingate I will quote from the daily News of St. John's, Newfoundland, which had this to say:
In fact, it might be imagined that it would be better in the first instance to sound popular opinion by means of a referendum. And only if it should be shown by this means that there is an overwhelming demand for a new emblem, should any change be considered.
Take note, Mr. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).


An hon. Member:: He isn't here.


Robert Carman Coates: The Charlottetown Guardian had this to say:
There are a lot of people in Canada who may want to retain the old flag but do not want yet another national election at this time. This issue would present them with a painful choice. It could be averted by a national referendum, thus leaving the country at large to make a free choice in the matter. But Mr. Pearson will have none of that.
I now come to the Toronto Telegram. I might mention that while this paper has been a strong supporter of the Conservative party, I remember that not very long ago it was a strong supporter of the Liberal party. It had this to say in an editorial entitled "Statesmanship":
It is highly probable that the Progressive Conservative opposition will move an amendment to Pearson s flag legislation asking for such a plebiscite. Mr. Andrew Brewin, the N.D.P. member from Toronto-Greenwood, has expressed the belief that most of his colleagues would vote for it Mr. Arnold Peters, N.D.P. member from Timiska-mmg, and New Democrat Barry Mather of B C have reinforced this assumption.
I wonder if they have talked to their leader on this matter and convinced him that he also should be supporting this amendment. Another issue of the Toronto Telegram had this to say:	.
In the Telegram's view the Prime Minister has been recklessly unwise in rejecting the proposal for

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion a plebiscite on the issue. Only by such a device can the people of the nation freely and clearly express their choice.
The Victoria daily Colonist had this to say: Parliament has yet to express itself on the flag resolution but even among the doubts expressed by M-P.'s of all groups about the new design, and preference by many for a national plebiscite, the trend indicates that the government s measure will pass...
Unless at the last minute M.P.'s vote on the new flag as conscience and personal choice dictate it will never be known whether their decision is based on conviction or political expediency. And this will acerbate the division of public opinion that exists on the subject of a national flag.
Then the Quebec Chronicle had this to say: First things first is a good rule even for prime ministers. The flag issue now before parliament is unlikely to be over in a few days; it is bound to generate a great deal of bitterness in the country, even though the intentions of the government are above reproach.
For one thing, the country must know why Mr. Pearson had to move in such a hurry. Is he trying to do with the flag what Judy LaMarsh coudn't do with her pension plan? Or does he consider a national flag such a trivial piece of business that it wasn't really worth while consulting anybody on its design?
Mr. Speaker, those are some of the questions that some of the newspapers in this country are asking the Prime Minister about a national referendum.
May I call it ten o'clock.



Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the acting house leader about the business for tomorrow and Thursday and Friday, if he has the information.


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will go on with this debate. On Thursday we will consider the constitutional amendment. If it should be finished on Thursday, we will then continue with this debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:

Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, on June 10 I asked a question of the Associate Minister of National Defence in the following terms:

Is the minister aware that a civilian cook named Lome Edward Pace, with 12 years of good service in the R.C.N. and two years as a civilian cook with the H.C.A.F. in Halifax, has been discharged for taking home a 50 cent cake? Would the minister investigate the matter-
Mr. Speaker at that time ruled that the matter should be on the order paper, and I indicated according to the procedure relevant that I should like to discuss it in this period after ten o'clock.
Despite the fact that the question was ruled as one for the order paper, the associate minister of defence promptly conducted an investigation into the matter, and as a consequence of his investigation I received the following letter from him dated June 11:
Dear Mr. Regan:
I wish to inform you that I have had the dismissal of Mr. Lome Edward Pace, cook at the combined mess, R.C.A.F. Gorsebrook, Halifax, investigated.
I am satisfied that the action taken was unduly harsh, and I have directed that Mr. Pace be reinstated forthwith.
From the time of his release to the date of his reinstatement, he will be considered as under suspension without pay.
Yours very truly, Lucien Cardin
I should like to use these few moments to thank the associate minister of defence for his prompt action in this matter. Too often in years gone by it has been the way of ministers of the crown to tend to defend actions of their subordinates which have been too extreme. I think it is very much to the credit of our present associate minister of defence that he took this prompt action to rectify this injustice.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this case has ended happily. It was one in which a man was discharged by his superiors for taking home a cake which was more than a day old. Early information indicated that this cake would have ended up in the garbage; I now understand this is not the case but that it would have been used for pudding. Someone said to me a few moments ago that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think that while this case has ended very well we must wonder how many Lome Edward Paces there are whose cases do not come to the attention of parliament or to ministers of the crown.
In this instance radio station CHNS in Halifax and Edmund Morris, a former member of this house, brought the matter to public attention. After that I contacted the minister during the question period, and I

understand the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) had also contacted him in this regard. Certainly he should have some share in the credit for bringing the matter to the attention of the authorities. However, the case spells out, I think, the need for haste in providing an independent arbitration board to deal not only with discharge grievances but grievances of civil servants and government employees, including the hourly paid classifications. I have in mind grievances arising not only from discharge but from working conditions, classification and other matters.
As we all know, at the present time there is a committee investigating a system of collective bargaining for civil servants and other government employees, and presumably this
16, 1964	4387
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion system of collective bargaining, as is the custom in industry today, would include a system of totally independent arbitration. I think this is needed and I would urge haste in the work of this committee, because the matter has been under study for some time now. I think that if our government employees are not to be second class citizens where cases of this type go unnoticed, it is very important that as quickly as possible there be established by the authority of parliament a system of independent tribunals through which the grievances of all types of government employees and groups of government employees can be handled, so as to bring about fair and final disposal.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.06 p.m.

Wednesday, June 17, 1964