1964-08-18

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Loiselle.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I think this question should be directed to the Prime Minister. Has any consideration been given by the government to having a request made for a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, or the NATO council, in order that the deteriorating Cyprus situation, in particular, and the withdrawal of units from NATO, all of which is full of menace to the continuing integrity of the NATO organization, might be considered by that body?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, consideration was given by the government to a meeting of NATO foreign ministers to discuss and consider this very delicate and indeed dangerous situation. Our fellow members of NATO were approached to find out whether they felt it would be useful to have a meeting at this time; but the consensus within the NATO council was that while circumstances may make a meeting of this kind desirable and even necessary, they did not feel-the majority of them-that it should be held at this particular moment.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Prime Minister and I should like to ask him as well, arising out of the current situation in Cyprus' whether the Canadian government is supporting the Acheson proposal for the union of Cyprus with Greece.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry, but I did not hear the last part of the right hon. gentleman's question.


John George Diefenbaker: The union of Cyprus with Greece; does the Canadian government support the Acheson proposal?
20220-439J


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a matter under discussion between the governments directly concerned and the Canadian government is not taking part in these discussions, at least at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: Even though it is not taking part in the discussions, has the government given any indication that it does in fact support this proposal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. Our position in the United Nations force at this moment and in the present circumstances makes it important that we should maintain a position of neutrality in this matter.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has any progress been made in negotiations with the government of Cyprus regarding the extension of the terms of reference of the United Nations peace keeping force? May I ask the hon. gentleman also whether the fact that Archbishop Makarios is now playing footsie with Mr. Khrushchev is going to make any hope of such an extension less likely of realization.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I think there are grounds for believing that the powers of the force as provided for in the original agreement with the government of Cyprus will be carried out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister speaks of the original agreement. Is there any hope of an extension of the present agreement to cover such things as the disarmament of guerrillas, in particular?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The disarming of guerrillas is not necessarily precluded by the present terms of reference. It becomes a question of the capacity of the force in face of the numbers opposed to it. In any event, new powers are now being discussed, as I indicated yesterday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if such powers are specifically stipulated in the agreement with the government of Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Secretary of
6944	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry State for External Affairs is now in a position to answer the questions I asked him yesterday with regard to the withdrawal of Greek forces from NATO, particularly the extent to which this withdrawal is to take place, the proportion of Greek troops involved, and the implications of this on the general NATO position?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend reminds the house, this question was asked yesterday. The decision of the Greek government to withdraw elements of its land, air and naval forces from NATO was officially made known to the NATO authorities yesterday afternoon. Members of the house will recall that action of a similar nature, relating to air force units only, however, had been taken earlier by Turkey.
The Canadian government regrets that both these governments should have found it necessary, for national purposes, to remove forces which had been assigned as part of NATO's defensive strength. However, the matter is now being discussed in NATO and I do not feel I can go any further at this time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether the Greeks have withdrawn the major portion of their forces from NATO, or only a small portion; and particularly whether the withdrawal of the Greek portion of the eastern Mediterranean headquarters at Izmir means that this will now cease to be an effective NATO eastern Mediterranean headquarters.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the last question, there is no word of developments of that kind. The full extent of the withdrawal is now a matter of discussion, however, in the NATO council.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether it is the intention of the government to recall to Canada the Canadian air force officers who are serving with the Turkish air force at the present time.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Perhaps I might answer that question, Mr. Speaker. The house has already been informed that shipments of mutual aid in respect of aircraft parts to both Greece and Turkey have been suspended. Previously, in order to facilitate the supply of spares and the return of equipment to Canada for repair, we had officers in both Greece and Turkey. Some time ago the office in Greece was with-


drawn. This was in accordance with previous plans. The office in Turkey was given responsibility for liaison with both the Turkish air force and the royal Hellenic air force. They have been instructed, however, to cease visits pending further developments.
There are three service personnel, one squadron leader and two sergeants, and two contract field service representatives, one Canadair and one Rolls Royce, remaining in Turkey. All these people's tours expire within the next few months and they will not be replaced at that time, unless there is a stabilization of the situation in the meantime. One officer, who had just returned to Canada when his tour expired, was not replaced. That is the situation at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister whether any of the 107 Sabre jets which Canada gave to Turkey were used by that nation in the recent bombing raids on Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps I could deal with this particular question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the recent press report that Turkey, and perhaps also Greece, used Canadian built aircraft provided to them as mutual aid in Cyprus, the position on F-104's was given in detail by my colleague the Minister of National Defence, as the hon. gentleman will recall, on May 13 this year.
With regard to the F-86 aircraft, Canada undertook in 1954 a program for the provision of F-86 mark II aircraft to Greece and also to Turkey under the general program for the provision of mutual aid to NATO countries. In all some 107 aircraft were provided to each country, with spare engines and spares support. There have been reports in the papers that F-86 aircraft were used by both Greece and Turkey during recent days, but we are not in a position as of this moment to know whether such aircraft had in fact been supplied by Canada several years ago under the NATO arrangements for the mutual assistance program.
However, I should point out to the house that equipment given by Canada as mutual aid is provided on the condition that the recipient nation accepts responsibility for use of the equipment so received to strengthen the capacity of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to deter or resist aggression. The implications of this condition in the present circumstances are being brought again to the attention of the governments involved. As my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence pointed out, at the

time when Canada decided to take part in the United Nations force in Cyprus there was a suspension by Canada of its mutual aid assistance program to Greece and Turkey.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could I ask the minister what steps the Canadian government takes to see that the recipients of military material, such as planes, use that material for the purpose for which it was intended; and in the event that the government finds it is not used for that purpose, is it the government's intention to have the material returned to Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, if it were confirmed that these planes had been used contrary to the requirement of use, the Canadian government would raise the matter at once in the NATO council.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the UN secretary general, U Thant, announced that he was negotiating an agreement with one country in order to send a reinforcement of 900 men to the UN force in Cyprus, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to assure us that those negotiations are not being held with Canada and that Canada is not involved in the possible reinforcement of the UN force in Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I call the hon. member's attention to the reply I gave last Friday.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is as follows. In view of the fact that it was reported at noon today by the Canadian Press that a large number of British troops had been withdrawn from Cyprus, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether these were troops under United Nations command or whether they were British troops which were under British command on the island? If they were under United Nations command, was Canada consulted in this move?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to deal with that question either later in the day or tomorrow, because I have a meeting this afternoon and I do not want to say anything before that meeting takes place.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that it was also reported in the same news broadcast that over 50,000 Turkish troops were mobilizing and were on board ships in ports right across from the island of Cyprus, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the meetings he is attending whatever its nature may be, make strong representations to any countries which are supplying troops to the UN command not to remove any further troops? Because it was also reported that Canada is now the only country with a substantial number of troops on the island. Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tells us at this point how many troops are at the moment under UN command in Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there are around 6,000. I am sure no country would remove all its troops without the prior consultation of the participating members and without the authority of the secretary general of the United Nations.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the minister to impress upon the United Kingdom government the necessity or at least the importance of keeping its force on Cyprus at its present strength?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, sir.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Is the minister aware of the statement made yesterday in Canada by a Greek Cypriot student? She is reported as saying that the identification of the British and Canadian troops was not adequate, that often Canadian soldiers were taken for English soldiers in Cyprus and that the British troops were not as popular as the Canadian troops?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement.


SOUTHEAST ASIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, or perhaps it had better be directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge is now in Europe address-

Inquiries of the Ministry ing members of the NATO council, searching for assistance for United States policies in southeast Asia, is the government of Canada giving consideration to providing assistance to the United States in this region?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have already made statements on this matter and I have nothing to add to those statements, except that I believe Mr. Lodge will be visiting Ottawa within the next two weeks.


MALAYSIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Indonesia's aggressive attacks against Malaysia are continuing, the latest occurring only yesterday, would the hon. gentleman consider recommending to his colleagues that the hundreds of thousands of dollars now going to Indonesia be diverted to Malaysia to help that country defend itself against Indonesian aggression?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would want to give consideration to whether that was a wise suggestion.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether or not any or all of the other nations within the NATO organization have suspended mutual aid to both Turkey and Greece?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may have misunderstood the hon. gentleman. Did he ask me what the others are doing, or what Canada should be doing?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No. My question was this-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am referring to the hon. member for Oxford.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was asking the secretary of state if he would request his colleagues in the Canadian government to give consideration to cutting off the supply of aid to Dr. Sukarno, in view of his aggressive attacks on Malaysia, and diverting this assistance, which I believe amounts to some $350,000 or $400,000, to Malaysia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The aid given to Indonesia is not military aid. As I said I would wish to give consideration to the suggestion made.


Mr. Churchill:: What kind of aid is it?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the absence of the Minister of Justice perhaps he can enlarge his answer so it might cover the legal aspects of the question, as it relates to Hal Banks. Does the minister have any information for the house today in regard to the whereabouts of Hal Banks and the three other S.I.U. officials who failed to appear yesterday and for whom bench warrants have been issued today? Does the minister have any information about their whereabouts?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no information whatsoever in respect of the location of Mr. Banks. I do believe at least one of the other officers who failed to appear yesterday is in Canada. I believe they are all in Canada, but I have no knowledge of the whereabouts of Mr. Banks.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Minister of Justice. It has to do with the elusive Mr. Banks. Has there been any estreatment of his bail bond as yet? Is the acting minister in a position to say what endeavour has been made to locate him? I do not want to suggest that he is on the island of Capri, but that seems to be a place of some attractiveness.


An hon. Member:: The minister is coming in now.


John George Diefenbaker: I welcome the minister. If Banks would only turn up in the same way everything would be all right. Will the minister say whether there has been any estreatment of the bail? I also asked a question just before the minister came in to this effect. Is he in a position to advise whether there has been any indication as to the present whereabouts of Mr. Banks, particularly since he was said to be sojourning in New England?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: must be frank and admit that if I was not in the house during the last half hour, I was not with Mr. Banks either. I do not know exactly, therefore, his whereabouts.
Seriously, I have requested that whatever information is available be obtained; and whether precise or not, I am not in a position to furnish it to the house today. I hope to be

able to say something about the matter tomorrow. In so far as the estreatment of the bail is concerned, I understand that this relates to the case with respect to which Mr. Banks was supposed to appear yesterday. I asked my officers this morning to obtain definite particulars from our counsel in this respect, and I will be in a position tomorrow to advise the house.


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Pontiac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Has the Minister of Justice given instructions for the forfeiture of the $25,000 bond of Mr. Banks?


Guy Favreau: I must say that I have not given instructions for the estreatment of the $25,000 bond, for the following reasons. As I said yesterday, there is already a bench warrant issued, so there would not be much point in having the bond estreated. I am considering at the moment whether the cancellation of the bond, at this moment, would assist in obtaining the presence of Mr. Banks on September 14. In any event, I have taken no position on that or given no firm opinion. The main reason, as I have said is that a bench warrant is already available for the arrest of Mr. Banks should he show up.
So far as the bond is concerned in the case in which he was supposed to appear yesterday, I repeat that I have no final information, but my information at the moment is that crown counsel, acting for the attorney general of the province, intends to ask for its cancellation. As I say, we will have further information tomorrow as to the disposition of any motion that may have been made this morning.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Was he consulted in the first place about the advisability of granting bail to Mr. Banks?


Guy Favreau: With regard to the $25,000 bond or bail yes, as evidenced by the fact that after consultation with the then crown attorney, it had been decided, by common consent, that it should be suggested to the chief justice of the court of appeal to refuse any bail-a fact which the judge noted in his judgment-and failing that to set bail at not less than $50,000.
Inquiries of the Ministry
However, the chief justice, guided by his own experience, decided that $25,000 bail would be adequate. He gave his reasons in his judgment.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister not now agree with the criticism that was raised by the opposition some weeks ago, that it was a most dangerous course to follow to give Banks bail and not assure in the bail bond that he should remain within the jurisdiction of the court?


Guy Favreau: I just said, Mr. Speaker, that I have the greatest respect for the honourable chief justice of the court of appeal, who was appointed by the previous government. On the occasion of his appointment I wrote my predecessor Mr. Fulton to congratulate him. I just said that we thought we should object to the bond being granted, but I still say that I respect the decision which was rendered at the time. We still do not know whether Mr. Banks will present himself on September 14.


John George Diefenbaker: With regard to the kind of bail bond that is taken, does not the responsibility rest at all times upon crown counsel to see that the judge shall have before him the assurance that the wrongdoer will turn up? I see the minister is receiving assistance from the law student sitting beside him. I am directing the question to the minister. Is it not a fact that at all times the judge accepts what crown counsel suggests, if it is reasonable and right?


Guy Favreau: Evidently the responsibility for suggesting to the court what attitude ought to be taken with regard to bond rests with crown counsel at the moment when crown counsel may give information to the court. But as of this moment it is the sole responsibility of the court to decide, under the court's authority, what the bond has to be, that is if the court reaches the conclusion that a bond must be set. In this particular case I say that crown counsel has fully discharged his responsibility toward the people of Canada, first in objecting to the bond; second, suggesting the bond ought not to be less than $50,000; third, respecting the court's decision.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Banks seems to enjoy some solicitude.


Hon. Marcel Lamberi (Edmonton West):: In
view of the fact that Mr. Banks seems to have appeared on parliament hill on every occasion upon which there were dealings with

Inquiries of the Ministry the Department of Transport, has thought been given to the possibility of sending him a telegram to appear on parliament hill?


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I would like to direct to the Minister of Industry. Are copies of Hansard being sent to Mr. Banks so that he may be kept informed of the interest of this house in his whereabouts?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of Mr. Banks' address.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice relative to the disappearance of Mr. Hal Banks. In view of the fact that Mr. Banks is vice president of the S.I.U. of North America and still draws $20,000 a year salary from that organization, has the minister or any of his officials contacted the head office of the S.I.U. to ascertain the address to which they are mailing his cheques?



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. With respect to the statement he made yesterday concerning the repatriation of the Canadian constitution, I should like to know whether the government intends to inform parliament of the amendments it proposes to our constitution and the methods it suggests for amending our constitution in future, that is after the B.N.A.A. has been repatriated-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; as soon as there is something to report on this matter naturally we would want to inform parliament. [Translation]


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether the fed-

eral government has initiated talks with the provinces concerning the repeal of subsection 1, section 91 of the B.N.A.A., especially as far as the unilateral amending of the Canadian constitution by the federal government is concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have only been considering a procedure for amending the constitution to repatriate it to this country, in the light of the forthcoming meetings.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, my question was whether there had been direct conversations with the provincial governments concerning this particular article 91(1).


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to look into that, Mr. Speaker. I will inform my hon. friend tomorrow.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he any statement to make concerning his meeting with the leaders of the four parties this morning, as regards the Canadian flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. We had a discussion this morning which was not concluded. We are going to meet again on Thursday, so I prefer not to say anything until after that meeting.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Leader of the Opposition I wish to table the tender documents in respect of a public tender called by the Department of Public Works for the provision of leased accommodation for the Department of Labour and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compion-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could the right hon. Prime Minister inform the members of this house of the reasons preventing him from increasing family allowances in keeping with the increase that has taken place in the other sectors of the national economy since 1944?


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



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Following the representations of the dairy producers federation, can the minister tell us whether he intends to reconsider the cheese policy which he announced on April 29 last, and either restore the 30 cents per hundredweight subsidy on milk or refund the premium of 3.6 cents lost by cheese factories on second grade cheese?

Mr. Speaker, before the events referred to a few moments ago by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) materialize, I should have liked to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) a question, but since the Minister of Agriculture cannot be present, would the Minister of Forestry be kind enough to ask him whether he received, yesterday or the day before, a request from the dairy products manufacturers' federation? Also, could not the Minister of Forestry take it upon himself to assist the Minister of Agriculture in settling the urgent problem raised by the Quebec province dairy products manufacturer's federation?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this is a question for the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry



FEED GRAIN SUBSIDIES IN ST. JOHN AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry.
I read order in council 1155 concerning grants for the transport of grain to various parts of the country and I would like to ask the Minister of Forestry if there has been any error or if the wording is correct, because section 2(2) of schedule 4 provides that grants will only be applicable to farmers of the Saguenay area. As the order in council makes no mention of the Lake St. John region, must I gather that no assistance will be given to farmers of the Saguenay-Lake St. John region?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to paragraph B. I have the order in council here and I can assure him that his constituency is covered under paragraph G of schedule A.


Marcel Lessard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us if it is pure coincidence that the Iles-de-la-Madeleine and Newfoundland regions will both get higher grants of $15 and $25 a ton respectively? Is it only a coincidence or is it because those two regions are represented by the minister himself and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) ?


Maurice Sauvé: That has always been the policy of the department as far as that constituency and that province are concerned.



U.S. POLICY CHANGE RESPECTING MEAT IMPORTS FROM CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence perhaps the acting minister could reply. Is the hon. gentleman now able to state the policy of the government with regard to the embargo placed on Canadian meat entering the United States? Some two or three weeks ago I asked a similar question and the parliamentary secretary said he would take it as notice, but we have heard nothing since.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the minister left a minute ago. I will bring this question to his attention.
6950	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



CANTEEN DISTRIBUTION OF MATCH BOOKS WITH NEW FLAG DESIGN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware that military canteens are being supplied with pocket match containers bearing the imprint of the new Liberal proposed three maple leaf flag and, if so, did he authorize their distribution?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must admit I am unaware that this is being done, but if it is being done out of mess funds that would be outside the direct jurisdiction of the department and under the jurisdiction of the officers in charge of messes.


John George Diefenbaker: Ask the Minister without Portfolio.



BAGOTVILLE, QUE.-EXTENSION OF WATER SERVICE TO NEIGHBOURING COMMUNITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice  Cole@Chicoulimi: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Could he tell the house whether we can hope for an agreement between his department and a group of municipalities of Chicoutimi county concerning a metropolitan water works project that could supply the R.C.A.F. base at Bagotville?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associaie Minisler of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting with a delegation from Chicoutimi county concerning a waterworks project which could at the same time supply the Bagotville R.C.A.F. base.
The department now has that request under consideration and I hope it will be possible to give an answer in the affirmative.



RETIREMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL OF ATLANTIC FLEET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and follows up a matter discussed yesterday. In view of the difficulty of going into details on orders of
[Mr. Sauve.l

the day, would the minister be ready to discuss with the special committee on defence the principles underlying, or the reasons for, the forced retirement of Admiral Brock?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I do not think so. There are many factors which enter into these judgments which are very carefully thought out in advance of decisions being taken and, as I indicated yesterday, I do not think it would be in the interest of either the services or the individuals concerned that there should be a post mortem in each case, because there will be many such cases running through the whole ranks structure.



STATEMENT ON RECOVERY OF ARMS STOLEN IN MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Last Thursday the hon. member for Medicine Hat asked a question with regard to the recovery of arms stolen from the Fusiliers de Montreal armoury earlier this year. I am now in the position to reply to this question. I am informed that of a total of 110 weapons stolen, 97 have since been recovered. The investigation is being continued with regard to the remaining 13.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ian Granl Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may I direct this question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of widespread interest, will the parliamentary secretary tell the house whether further consideration will be given to prolonging the Chinese amnesty and adjustment program, and also to revising the regulations with regard to landing requirements for all immigrants?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest of the parliamentary secretary in this matter possibly the Prime Minister might answer and relieve him of this fear and this solicitude which is shared by us, and which was brought before the house by the hon. member for Regina City.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be even happier to relieve the right hon. gentleman of some of his fears.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, from the apparent indication of things it won't be long before he and I will be changing positions.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State following up questions I asked him previously. Has he now received replies from all the provinces regarding the centennial memorial project building grants, and has he reached a final understanding with the premier of the government of Saskatchewan regarding the use of the grant in Saskatchewan?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the best way of answering that question is for me to read the reply I sent to Mr. Thatcher on August 14, 1964:
I am now in a position to give an answer to your letter of July 7. As you already know, your request has raised an issue which has for us some complications.
On January 23, I wrote to provincial ministers responsible for centennial celebrations, offering, on behalf of the federal government, to participate in the financing "of a single capital project, which would preferably be comparable in spirit and function with the buildings in Charlottetown and Quebec city and be built in the provincial capital."
You are aware that this confederation memorial program provides further assistance to provincial governments, apart from the $1 per capita grant program which was designed to apply to all areas within each province. That is why we thought that the memorial program would lose much of its significance if it were to apply to several cities or areas in a province. I hope, therefore, that your government will find an alternative way of offering special assistance to Moose Jaw.
We have, however, taken into consideration the commitments made by the previous provincial government, the great importance you attach to 20220-440i
Inquiries of the Ministry this matter, the fact that none of my provincial colleagues in the national committee has opposed your proposal, and the similar features of the plans envisaged in Regina and Saskatoon. Because of all these particular circumstances, we are prepared to consider these plans as a twin project for the purpose of the federal grant provided, of course, that our maximum total contribution will not exceed $2,500,000.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Secretary of State if this proposal requires a matching grant from the province?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: As a further supplementary may I ask the Secretary of State if he thinks a suitable building can be erected for $2,250,000.


Maurice Lamontagne: Would the hon. member repeat the question, please?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I ask the Secretary of
State if he thinks a suitable building for this project can be erected for $2,250,000, which is the sum now available with the provincial grant of $2 million and the federal grant to Saskatoon and Regina?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, our contribution under this program provides for a maximum amount of $2J million, or not more than 50 per cent of the total cost of the project. I am quite sure that funds will be found in Saskatchewan to build these memorials.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I think it is important to clear this up, Mr. Speaker. In other words, 50 per cent of the cost of a project might involve federal and provincial grants and, in addition, the federal grant will not exceed the provincial grant. Is that correct?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Fifty per cent.


Maurice Lamontagne: The only condition we have imposed under this program is that we will not pay more than 50 per cent. The other 50 per cent may be financed by the provincial government, or the city or locality involved, or by both.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: As
a supplementary question can the minister say with respect to these buildings in the different provinces throughout Canada whether the federal government scrutinizes the system of contracting and subcontracting in the construction of said buildings?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because we have a signed agreement with the provinces covering all these aspects.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Miller Bell: Then is the minister fully satisfied that in the building at Fredericton, New Brunswick, the system of subcontracting meets these federal standards?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am not in a position to answer that question, but I shall have a reply tomorrow.



COMPLETION OF TRANSLATION OF BEAUCHESNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question?
In view of the numerous deficiencies in Beauchesne's book on procedure, during the debate yesterday and before, could the Prime Minister tell the house what progress is being made in the translation of that book and tell us when hon. members will have such a translation of Beauchesne?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not, but I will look into the matter and see whether I can make a statement on it tomorrow.



INQUIRY AS TO HOLDING OF BY-ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the public interest in this matter, could the right hon. gentleman tell the house whether the government has made a decision as to filling the vacancies in the electoral districts of Westmorland and Waterloo South and, if the dates have been decided on, could he now announce those dates?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter is still under consideration.


Reid Scott: In view of the fact that in the ridings of Laurier and St. Denis the by-elections were completed within 44 days of the members' resignations, and in view of the fact that the riding of Westmorland has been vacant for 82 days and the riding of Waterloo South for 52 days, could the Prime Minister give an explanation for the haste in the one instance and the delay in the other?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That would require quite a long statement.
[Mr. Lamontagne.l



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport with reference to the transfer of radio station CKWW, Windsor, to WWKC Holdings Limited. Was this transfer approved by the Department of Transport before being referred to the board of broadcast governors?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: That would be quite impossible, I would think, under the law as it stands. As I understand it, the Department of Transport receives these applications and refers them to the board of broadcast governors for its judgment, and there would be no action of any definitive sort taken by the Department of Transport, or by the minister, or by the government-whoever makes the decision in these matters-until the board of broadcast governors had held its hearing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State and ask whether his department is making any representations to the board of broadcast governors with reference to this transfer?


Maurice Lamontagne: My department does not make representations before the board of broadcast governors in these cases, but the recommendations received from the board of broadcast governors are always very carefully considered by the government.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, August 17, consideration of the motion by Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. More.
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, when I began my remarks last evening I mentioned that the day a nation

unfurl its new flag should be a time of excitement and enthusiasm; it should be a time when the various divisive elements become united and stand behind the new flag, the new symbol which everyone can accept.
That this is not possible at this time should be patently clear to the house. We hear some very sincere, vintage speeches being made by hon. members on this side of the house, but we notice a surprising poverty of speeches from the other side of the house. I am wondering why this is so. Can this be because there is a lack of conviction on the part of hon. members on the other side of the house who are being asked to support a flag for which they cannot quite speak up? Can it be that there is an unwillingness on their part to do so because of the feeling that their constituencies might have them do otherwise? Why is there no enthusiastic response to defend the flag?
I think of some of the very notable speeches that have come from this side of the house, and I noticed hon. members opposite listening with great interest to the very reasonable and reasoned arguments that were undoubtedly put forward. I am just wondering why the indifferent attitude of hon. members opposite is so evident and why they cannot be persuaded by this kind of reasoning. Surely the Prime Minister himself must be quite chagrined over the turn of events since the introduction of the main motion, a motion that he hoped would bring about national unity but which has now brought about the greatest division in our country that we can remember.
With regard to this very point of national unity, Mr. Speaker, I would think all members on all sides of the house are certainly anxious to strive for and do all those things that will contribute to national unity. For this reason I fail to understand why, when a reasonable suggestion is put forward, such as has been made by the Leader of the Opposition, to put this question before the people of Canada in the form of a referendum, the suggestion cannot be accepted. Surely this is a nation-saving move, an excellent and honourable way for the Prime Minister to get out of the dilemma in which he now finds himself.
In this tenth day of debate of this issue there is, I can assure the house, no less enthusiasm for speakers on this side of the house to defend the actions taken by earlier speakers or to defend the measures that will really bring about the national unity that
Canadian Flag
we all expect. I have mentioned the lack of speakers from the other side of the chamber. One hon. member said this reminds him of a lawyer appearing in court with no witnesses. Why is this so? Is he unable to bring witnesses? Are hon. members opposite unable to muster arguments in the defence of their choice of a national flag?
I believe that members on all sides of the house must be receiving the kind of mail that we on this side are receiving. I cannot accept that merely because my neighbour happens to be in another political party the residents of that constituency are not writing the kind of letters that I and other hon. members are receiving. This makes me believe that hon. members who are not willing to tell the house of the kind of letters they are receiving are simply unable to do so because they are not in accord with the main motion put to the house by the Prime Minister.
As my witness I would call an editorial appearing in the Daily Graphic of May 21. This newspaper enjoys a wide circulation in my riding. The editorial reads in part as follows:
The Canadian people have never been directly asked if they want a new flag. Surely this is the first step; it seems to us the question should be asked directly, in a national referendum, and not in the conflict of a partisan election.
If we give birth to a flag out of today's dissension, by a pressed vote in parliament, what will it mean? Further dissension, undoubtedly.
Consider, instead, with what pride and fanfare a flag ... and maybe a better flag ... might have been produced by a dominion-provincial conference that will, in due course, have to consider constitutional changes.
Today is hardly the time, in the face of angry dissension, to force the flag issue on the Canadian people.
I believe many of us have come to feel this way, and that is why there have been repeated requests by speakers to have this matter held over for a few months so that feelings on this issue may be cooled and brought more into line. Coming to the point under discussion-to which I am sure we must limit ourselves-namely the referendum and the plebiscite itself, I would call as another witness an editorial which appeared in the Portage Leader, which says in part as follows:
Limitless debate on Canada's flag is right. ..
It would be best, of course, if the Canadian government were to give the people of the nation the privilege of voting in a plebiscite on this question.
It appears unlikely that Prime Minister Pearson is willing to extend to us this democratic luxury, but in the absence of such a plebiscite, it is then most necessary that every member-wherever seated in

Canadian Flag
the green chamber-should be allowed to express his views with all the eloquence at his command.
This we are doing at the invitation of the Prime Minister. This editorial continues:
In some matters, members of parliament have a duty to follow the program proposed by the party to which they belong and which has given them the privilege of sitting in the governing benches of the House of Commons.
Any man who sought and gained election on the strength of a pledge that he would scrap our national ensign and replace it with some other device must in honour adhere to this commitment.
How many did? ...
The vote on the flag issue should be completely free. Of course, it will not be. While Liberal members in the government benches have been promised that they will not be punished if they should rebel against the party line, they will be voting under a manifest discipline. Those Liberals who put loyalty to the flag above loyalty to the party may reasonably expect to lose favour in the party caucus.
This, however, is an issue on which individual members will prove their stature by acting independently and relying on the electorate rather than the party organization to pass judgment upon their actions.
With the New Democratic party and the Social Creditistes allied to the Liberals on the flag issue, it is expected that Mr. Pearson's pennant may gain parliamentary approval.
If it does, it will be a sad day for Canada, for many thousands of Canadians will be bitterly offended at the affront to the flag which they have saluted with great respect all their lives.
This is the sort of issue which can only lead to disunity. In our parliamentary democracy, however, the people-not the government-make the final decisions. Whether or not we have a plebiscite, the people will decide on the issue of the flag.
This is the good thing about parliamentary democracy that stems from the United Kingdom-the people can speak at least once in every five years. And they speak with thunderous authority.
I would remind the house that this question has developed at the insistence of the Prime Minister; he is the one who is inviting this discussion, and this is an indication that the Liberal government is not ready to test its popularity with the people of this country. Perhaps it is unwilling to test its stand in a referendum, and maybe that is the reason we are not being given the luxury, if I may call it that, of such a referendum.
With regard to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City, the first question reads:
1. Are you in favour of the red ensign?
We are asked to consider whether this is a proper question to appear on a plebiscite. I would merely call to mind a sample of some of the the mail which has come to me. First of all I should like to read a brief extract from a letter received from a study group in Winnipeg. One of the signatories to
[Mr. Enns.l
the letter is the mayor of Assiniboia. The letter reads in part:
The loss of the red ensign would cause a split in our nation such as we have never known before. This split added to the Pearson bicultural rift could spell the ruination of our future as a nation.
We believe that if the people of Canada fully understood the traditions represented by the symbols on the red ensign, they would overwhelmingly endorse its retention as our flag.
Were it not for the restrictive ruling made yesterday by the Chair I would have wanted to make additional comments about the meaning of a flag. However, I would refer hon. members to the excellent address of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, who went to some length to explain the real purpose and meaning of our present flag.
This is a letter which I have received from McCreary, another part of my riding. It reads:
In regard to the national flag for Canada I am in favour of the red ensign. I am strongly in favour of the decision being left up to the people at the next election.
That is endorsing a referendum, and I have had numerous letters supporting the same step. I was also very interested to receive a petition from some collegiate students. About 100 names were placed on this petition from the Carberry collegiate, which puts forward in a very well worded resolution their arguments why they felt the red ensign should be retained as our national flag. Finally, on this first question I should like to mention that I received a letter from Westbourne which really is critical of any proposal for a referendum. However, it goes on to say:
I am not in favour of the tri-leaf flag. I think the red ensign does quite well-
So that even those letters which are critical of our stand-and they are not many in number-are still not in support of the proposed flag, the trifoil maple leaf design. I have mentioned the earlier speeches made in this house, and I have been most impressed by some of the arguments which have been put forward. I am hopeful that more people, as they become aware of the issues at stake, can be persuaded to think again about this very important step which the government is considering.
The second part of the plebiscite, question No. 2, reads:
Are you in favour of the red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritages of both founding races?
I have already indicated a strong preference for the red ensign, but I personally am

not inflexible in my stand. I also feel that many people across the country would quite readily accept a modification of the red ensign.
Here we have an odd situation which has developed. We have people who are very much in favour of the ensign and who say "Why all this fuss? Let us make the decision and make it final, and then stop any further debate". Then we have other people who say "Here is a new flag. This is what we want. Let us not continue needless debate; make it final and take a vote". Then again we have others who say "Why is a flag becoming a major issue in the first place, when there are more important things to discuss."
So it will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that we have unanimity across the land at least on one point, and that is impatience at the length of time it has taken to come to agreement on this issue. I suggest to the Prime Minister that if there cannot be agreement, then this is no time to pursue the matter further, and that the judgment of the government must be that the temper of the land will not allow a decision to be taken on the matter. Certainly we do not want to make a decision in haste, like some other decisions taken by the government which have not proven too helpful to the development of our national affairs.
Coming back to the question of accepting modifications to the ensign, I think this is a point which will bring us together. If those of us who favour the ensign are able to say "Yes, we will compromise on a modification", and if those who feel strongly for the maple leaf design can bring themselves to say "We will accept some change or modification to our proposal", then perhaps we can come together with regard to a modification, which is suggested in question 2 of the proposed plebiscite.
I have been reminded of some remarks made by Rev. Gordon Smyth of the Parkdale United church on the question of symbolism. He said:
It is impossible to cut symbolism out of the affairs of men and nations. The roots go deep. If a man were to resolve never to use a symbol again, he could not shake hands with a friend, put a ring on the finger of his bride, kiss his child or take a sacrament. Human nature requires symbols. The heart craves after some tangible expression of the intangible.
I suggest that the removal of symbols, which would mean removal of some of the traditions which we have come to revere, would be a serious undertaking, and that it ill behooves anyone to do this without
Canadian Flag
proper attention being paid to the matter. I also suggest that such a step should not be taken in any kind of haste. I believe Canadians generally have an abiding faith in divine Providence, and that most Canadians share a trust under the only flag they know. If we are to do away with all links with past traditions, are we thereby indicating that we have become insensitive to the prayers for guidance of God and blessing upon Queen and nation, which mark the start of every day's sitting of this house? The country which does not honour its past has no future.
I would remind hon. members of the emphasis which is placed by this parliament on tradition at the opening of every session. We look at the mace on the table before us and are impressed with the years of tradition which it represents. I am sure that no other ceremony in Canada is as colourful or as dignified as the opening of parliament at the commencement of every session, because that is a ceremony filled with tradition. I suggest to hon. members that the complete removal of those symbols which have become so meaningful on our national flag without full regard to the implications of such a step would be a very dangerous action to take, if it is ever successfully taken. I repeat that the country which does not honour its past has no future.
I would mention at this point the third question on the plebiscite, which really forms the second part of my argument. I interject here to say that I have heard it said that there are too many questions on the proposed plebiscite. It is said that if there are four questions to be answered this will defeat the possibility of any one question being answered in a clear, decisive manner. However, I suggest to the house that really the four questions fall very neatly into two parts. The first two questions deal with the red ensign and modification thereof; the second two questions, questions 3 and 4, deal with the maple leaf design and modification thereof.
Again I point to the wording of the proposed plebiscite, which refers to "among the questions to be placed before the people". It does not say that these are the only questions. Perhaps the questions could even be modified further. I find very little difficulty in supporting entirely the subamendment as it now appears.
Referring to the second half of the subamendment dealing with those questions in

Canadian Flag
respect of the maple leaf, permit me to name as my further witness a person eminent in public affairs, Dr. Eugene Forsey, who has been often quoted in this house and who reminds us all that we have at this stage accepted the fact that Canada is a bicultural country. If that is so, why then are we so anxious to change and keep out of the flag any implication or indication of this fact of biculturalism? Certainly the design as proposed gives no indication of this fact of biculturalism. As Dr. Forsey has said, every human vestige of our country and everything distinctively Canadian has been carefully excluded from this design by this legislation.
Of course we all realize that Canadians have carried the maple leaf insignia on their uniforms in times of war. However, this fact has been played up out of all proportion. The Royal Canadian Legion is aware of this fact, and what segment of the population is in a better position to appreciate it? What segment of the population deserves more respect? It is true that veterans wore the maple leaf in battle, but I am certain they were not marching under the maple leaf design but rather were marching into battle for ideals associated with the Canadian ensign, which have been lauded by so many capable speakers already.
The authority I have referred to, Dr. Eugene Forsey, and another eminent historian, Dr. Creighton, professor of history at the University of Toronto, wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister dated May 27, 1964, in which they say something about this distinctive new flag which I think should be repeated. That letter reads in part as follows:
We applaud your decision to seek a distinctive national flag for Canada, and recognize your courage in doing so. We believe, as you do, that the flag should be a source of national unity, and that it should be unmistakeably Canadian in character. However, we protest that the maple leaf flag is neither of these things. Its only advantage is that it is innocuous, that it produces tepid approval, mild disapproval, or indifference, and that it can therefore be adopted without any display of strong feeling whatever. We have a despairing feeling that this insipid flag, instead of promoting national unity, will produce only an indifferent response, and in doing so will subtly undermine the Canadian will to survive. We believe profoundly that this negative approach to our national symbols erodes our national spirit.
Later in this same letter these gentlemen state:
We believe that Canada has a distinguished culture of its own. We believe that this is a positive culture. We believe that the basis of this positive culture is a frank acceptance of both the English Canadian and the French Canadian civilizations. We believe that a distinctive Canadian flag should reflect this positive fact.
[Mr. EnnsJ
We are not in the position of a country with a revolutionary tradition, creating itself anew; we exist because we have inherited the past without a revolutionary upheaval. It is false and dispiriting to adopt a flag which subtly ignores the truth of our own nature. This is not the kind of symbol to rally a bewildered ... nation.
I think these are very eloquent arguments that we should be careful and slow in the removal of these things and the introduction of new symbols in our flag without paying due regard to the effect on the minds of the people of this country as a result of these significant changes. The adoption of a flag is not the kind of measure that can be amended from year to year. Very often we say that parliament decides an issue and the Canadian people must accept the decision of parliament, but most economic measures can be amended year by year and changed by increasing or decreasing the amount of expenditures, or by adopting new policies as for example in respect of foreign affairs. We know from our experience to date that the adoption of a national symbol on a new flag can and usually will arouse great emotional crises throughout the country. It would certainly be folly for anyone to suggest that parliament can come back in five years and improve on the flag by adding to it, changing the colour, or making some other change that might then be appropriate.
For that reason it is very important that the type of flag to be adopted is one that will really be accepted by all Canadians. I submit we will not know of this acceptance until there has been a national referendum held along the lines suggested in the subamendment now under discussion.
National unity and harmony are too important to be driven, introduced or threatened at this delicate stage of our Canadian history. I suggest that every precaution possible should be taken, in respect of any undertaking similar to the adoption of a new flag, to assure ourselves that we are helping to continue and strengthen a united nation willing to stand together regardless of the issues that face the country. I am confident that somehow this can be accomplished, but I believe this will require an honest effort on the part of all members to conduct themselves in such a manner that extreme positions will not be taken, but rather that positions of reasonableness will prevail.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have hesitated to take part in this debate, not from any lack of conviction but because no one with

respect tor our parliamentary institutions would wish to contribute to the filibuster now under way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if anyone had any doubt that a filibuster is under way this doubt disappeared on Thursday evening when the hon. member for Regina City moved his subamendment which is now under discussion in the house. The purpose of that subamendment could only be to prolong the debate. Indeed, when your ruling was challenged, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite made it quite clear that they hoped you would rule that they could repeat their speeches over and over again.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to a question of privilege. I think under the rules it is not proper for a member of this house to impute motives to other members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Certainly the minister has
directly imputed a motive to me in respect of my action in this house on Thursday night. I took the action I did then to indicate what a plebiscite should be, and I ask that the minister withdraw the imputation in respect of any other intent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The imputation of motives was not directed solely to the hon. member for Regina City; the minister included all the members of the Conservative opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is general agreement, apparently, amongst the members of the Liberal claque.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The trained seals, the successors of the 1956 Liberals.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that we allow the minister to answer the point raised by the hon. member for Regina City, and perhaps the clouds will disappear very quickly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I have the privilege of finishing my sentence?


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I thought the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had finished when he got off the particular subject which had been raised as a point of order and
Canadian Flag
began making general remarks. I thought it was time to intervene.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there was an interruption from the other side which perhaps might have been called to order and corrected. I wanted to finish my remarks by saying that the minister, in addition to withdrawing the imputation of motives with regard to the hon. member for Regina City, might at the same time withdraw the imputation of motives with regard to the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the opposition seem to be very sensitive today. If anything I have said offended them in any way, if I imputed any motives to them to which they object, I certainly withdraw. I should like to say this to you, Mr. Speaker, however. Whether or not this was the intent -I shall not really impute motives-this is certainly the result. This subamendment is prolonging the debate, in my view quite unnecessarily. Anything that is being said on the subamendment could have been said on the amendment.
If one examines the proposition put before this house, the four questions that might be asked on a referendum, one is led to the conclusion that the house could not take a decision on this particular subamendment without further subamendments. If I were to agree that there should be a plebiscite, Mr. Speaker, I would not agree with these four questions and I would have to move a series of subamendments. I do not agree, and I am sure that the majority of the members oppose a plebiscite. I challenge the opposition to let the question come to a vote.


Mr. Graffiey:: A free vote.


Mitchell William Sharp: It will be a free vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In view of the minister's statement that it will be a free vote, will he say whether the government would continue in office if the motion were accepted?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada speaks for this party and is the house leader. He will answer. I say this to my hon. friend, that it will make no difference to the votes of the people on this side of the house whether this is a free vote or whether it is a vote that may result in the defeat of the government. We believe in this flag individually.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal of argument, when former matters were be-

Canadian Flag
tore the house, that nothing was going on that even faintly resembled a filibuster. There are a few innocents abroad who believed that. Today I do not believe anyone has any illusions about what is going on in the house. Hon. members opposite are determined to prolong this debate as long as possible and prevent parliament from acting.


Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-Carleton):: Will the minister permit a question? My question is, who has charge of the business of parliament, the government or the opposition?


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say this to my hon. friend, that if a party is determined to prolong the debate there is very little that can be done by any group, regardless of whether it is in the minority or the majority. I suggest to my hon. friend that the question of who is in control of this house may be answered by saying that the house leader attempts to lead the house, but if my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition does not choose to follow there is nothing he can do about it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when we think about filibusters our minds go to other places where filibusters have been attempted. I want to suggest to my friends opposite-


Mr. Peters:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was a ruling made yesterday that speeches should be related to the subamendment. I would strongly urge Your Honour to enforce this ruling.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I just speak to this point of order? I think it ought to be cleared up once and for all right now that I am opposed to the subamendment. I am speaking against it. Are only those in favour of it to be given the privilege of speaking on it?


William Arnold Peters: I suggest that the hon. member who has the floor should contain himself. The decision of the Speaker yesterday was very definite, that the debate should be relevant to the subamendment. I suggest that all speakers be held to that ruling.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I suggest that what I am saying is strictly relevant to the subamendment, which I contend is part of the filibuster.


Gordon Minto Churchill: 1 rise on a point of order. I think the house would welcome a ruling as to whether a discussion of the nature of a filibuster is related to the subamendment before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I think the ruling made yesterday by the Speaker,

and confirmed by the house, was to the effect that the debate at this particular stage should be confined to the subamendment. I would hope the minister would keep his remarks within the bounds of the ruling that the Chair made yesterday.


Mitchell William Sharp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I refer, then, immediately to the subamendment. I am discussing the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City which appears on page 6808 of Hansard, and which suggests that the amendment before the house be amended by adding thereto certain words containing four questions. I am speaking to the subamendment and I am opposed to it. I am giving reasons why I am opposed to it.
Before the debate on the subamendment goes any further, or before what I contend is a filibuster proceeds any further, may I offer my friends opposite a few words of advice. I am not personally concerned about the prospect of a prolonged debate on this subamendment or a prolonged filibuster. I have been reconciled to it for some time now, so have my colleagues and so, I am convinced, have most of the members of this house. My concern, and it is a concern which I share with all thoughtful Canadians, is as to the effect the prolongation of this debate in an indefinite manner will have-


An hon. Member:: Change the business.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am talking about the subamendment which prolongs the debate indefinitely.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the hon. member a question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In view of his statement regarding the filibuster, so-called, and his concern about the indefinite prolongation of this debate, can he say if he is ready to recommend that the government bring in closure in this debate?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, as I said I am prepared to stay here indefinitely. My concern with the indefinite prolongation of this debate by devices such as the subamendment which we are now discussing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The interruptions are such that I am not able to hear very clearly what is being said.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my concern with the indefinite prolongation of this debate

which this subamendment would lead to is not so much with its effect upon parliament.
I think parliament can survive a filibuster, although it certainly won't enhance its reputation; and the people of Canada won't enjoy the filibuster, but they will survive it too. But what about the party led by my right hon. friend, who unfortunately is not in his seat at the present time? I regret his absence because I do not like referring to the right hon. gentleman when he is not here, and that is the only reason I mentioned it.
How long can this party that he leads remain united if it continues to pursue what I regard as this irersponsible and desperate manoeuvre, trying to prevent parliament from reaching a decision on this vital issue by this device of subamendments and in any other way they choose to carry on the debate? There was a time when I had an admiration, a rather reluctant admiration I must say, for the Leader of the Opposition as he led his party out of the wilderness. He led it to power. He led it to one of the greatest electoral triumphs in the history of this country. In those days he proclaimed his vision of Canada. He spoke of one Canada, united and strong. He led a rejuvenated Conservative party that seemed temporarily at least to have submerged its reactionary tendencies. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, have they abandoned this prospect of a united Canada?


William Heward Grafftey: No.


Mitchell William Sharp: Is this subamendment which I am debating a substitute for policy?


Mr. Starr:: Yes.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is what I have always contended, and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) confirmed that this party opposite has no policy on the flag, when he spoke like that. Are hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly those who speak the same language as I do, prepared to see their party tom asunder and disintegrate?


Mr. Dinsdale:: Worry about your own party.


Mitchell William Sharp: Is their party going to wither away into a regional party of reaction?


Hugh John Flemming: May I
ask the minister since when was he so concerned about the future of the Conservative party?


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall answer that question directly. I have concern for it, and it is not only my concern. I have here an editorial from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, that
Canadian Flag
answers directly the question asked by my hon. friend opposite:
By pursuing its present tactics to the point of forcing an election-
And until I heard the Leader of the Opposition today welcoming an election, and with all that humility he has asserting that they were going to succeed the present government-indeed, calling for an election-I did not know whether this was true.
By pursuing its present tactics to the point of forcing an election, the Conservatives, either willingly or otherwise, would find themselves appealing to English speaking Canada only. Such a campaign would mean the defeat of the ten Conservative M.P.'s from Quebec, excepting possibly L6on Bal-cer.
The party of Macdonald and Cartier no longer would be a national party, flexible enough to accommodate all regions of the country and all segments of the electorate.
It would leave moderate Quebeckers no alternative to the Liberals and it would give-


Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman or yourself, sir, could inform the house whether the party of Macdonald and Cartier is found in the subamendment?


Mitchell William Sharp: My trouble is that I do not find the party of Macdonald and Cartier in this house. That is my concern. What I would like to see is some of the spirit of Macdonald and Cartier, not a plebiscite, not a subamendment to prolong this debate. Let me read further from this editorial, because it is relative to this point:
Conservatism, the peculiarly Canadian brand of it so laboriously nurtured by Sir John A. Macdonald, and rooted in the creation of unity cut of diversity, would become-if it has not already become-the prisoner of prairie populism.
It is a bitter memory to recall that the Conservative party between 1958 and 1962 held 50 of Quebec's 75 seats. Today, it has ten and seems determined to lose those. If it does, not merely the Conservatives, but the entire nation will be the loser.
That is my answer. Mr. Speaker, as a Liberal I should not be concerned about the future of the Conservative party, but as a Canadian I am; and when I see the dissension in the ranks of the Conservative party it hurts me as a Canadian, because I want to see that party strong and united, able sometime, perhaps, to take over the government of this country again.


Mr. Coates:: I assume, Mr. Speaker, from the latitude you are allowing the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this debate that all further members, so long as this subamendment is being debated, will be allowed the same latitude in covering the field.

Canadian Flag


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will deal fairly with all sides. I believe I am being relevant. I believe I have a right to say why I am strongly opposed to this subamendment. When I heard myself challenged, along with other members on this side, to get up and speak, what was I supposed to do; support the subamendment? I am strongly opposed to it, and I intend to give my reasons.
The other evening I listened to the Leader of the Opposition speaking on the television program "The Nation's Business." What interested me most about his remarks on that occasion was not his appeal to the people to write in to the government in support of the red ensign which, since my hon. friends would like relevance, is the subject of one of the questions proposed in the subamendment. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was anticipating the motion he was going to put before the house when he appealed in advance for that sort of response, but predictably that appeal produced very little result. Certainly none of it came my way, and I consulted among my colleagues and found little response had come their way either.
That did not concern me particularly because that is what I expected, but what did concern me, and concerned me mightily, was the suggestion in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition that the fleur-de-lis should appear on the Canadian flag along with the union jack. Where did this suggestion come from? Did it come from the deskmate of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer)? I should like to have an answer to that question. Did it come from any of the members of the Conservative party from the province of Quebec? I am sure if this suggestion had been put to any of those hon. gentlemen they would have spurned it with contempt. To the people of Quebec this suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition-and I have heard it echoed by a number of speakers on the other side, none of them French Canadians-must have appeared as a clumsy and gratuitous piece of appeasement; it must ha.'e appeared to my French Canadian friends as a bone thrown out to a troublesome minority to keep them quiet.


An hon. Member:: Does the second part of your resolution appeal to them?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition did not mean it that way. I give him the benefit of the doubt. But whatever he intended, that is how it appears; just plain, unadorned appeasement by one who had not

taken the trouble to understand the true sentiments and true feelings of the French speaking people of this country. I say now, to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. gentlemen opposite, let us forget about trying to appease anybody in connection with this flag. Let us all work toward a flag which is truly Canadian and which represents all of us, whatever our origin and language, a flag which symbolizes our unity, not our divisions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: In this subamendment-and I will be strictly relevant, as I have been-in the second of the questions proposed for a plebiscite, the hon. gentleman apparently was thinking of a union jack with a fleur-de-lis in the fly.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Mitchell William Sharp: What would this proposal
mean? To me it would not represent the unity of Canada. It would be a perpetual reminder of our divisions. Yesterday I listened to a number of speakers, taking part in the debate on the subamendment, who boasted of their British origins. I could boast like that, too. I am, I think, of pure Scottish blood, though there is perhaps a little Irish mixed in somewhere.


Mr. Nowlan:: Unfortunately, not very much.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps that is right; I would like to have a little more. I received part of my education in Britain. My father fought in the first world war, and I certainly take second place to no one in my respect for British institutions or my dedication to the British connection. Moreover, I represent an English speaking constituency. I think I know one French speaking Canadian in that constituency, a very eminent lawyer. Other than that, I think they are all English speaking. Does this mean I should insist upon the union jack appearing in a Canadian flag?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Mitchell William Sharp: If that is the attitude we are never, in this country, going to get a flag which is acceptable. I am very proud of my British heritage, but I tell this house one thing I am even more proud of, and that is of being a Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: As a Canadian I call upon all my fellow Canadians in this house to seek a flag which represents Canada at home and abroad. Such a flag should say, to borrow a phrase of the Prime Minister's, "I stand

for Canada". It would be a flag for all of us; for those of my background and experience, for those of Ukrainian origin, for those who came from Germany and Poland, for all the peoples who make up the mosaic of our culture.
During the last few days I have made a point of listening to the speeches made in this debate both on the subamendment and on the amendment which is still before the house and which hon. members opposite do not wish to come to a vote. I must say that all those to whom I listened spoke with great sincerity. They stated with sincerity their convictions about a Canadian flag, and this is as it should be. I have no quarrel with that; I hope I am speaking with some conviction myself now.
But as I listened to those speeches I must confess I was disappointed. Hon. gentlemen opposite spoke of their devotion to the red ensign. They spoke of the Christian symbolism of the crosses of the union jack. I listened very carefully and I was very impressed by some of the speeches, particularly those made by members from western Canada. Perhaps I have a little affinity with them because I spent the first 30 years of my life in that part of the country. But what I missed-and I hope the hon. gentlemen opposite will understand my concern-were evidences of the spirit which I believe must animate Canada, a spirit of tolerance and conciliation. The devotion of these hon. members to the red ensign, I can understand, but what I cannot understand, and what every thoughtful Canadian must deplore, are the derisive references to the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister as a design for Canada's flag.
I will never speak with disrespect or with derision about the Canadian ensign; I can assure hon. members of that. I do not think anyone in this house will do so. Regardless of the outcome of this debate, the red ensign will always have an honoured place in Canadian history. As hon. members opposite are fond of saying, many people fought and bled under that red ensign, so regardless of whether or not in continues as the flag of Canada, it will always be honoured. But to me, and to millions of Canadians who think like me-and there are millions of them, I can assure hon. members opposite-the three red maple leaves are also an honoured symbol of Canada, and my blood boils when members opposite refer to that symbol in disparaging terms. I do not need to remind them how many times we hear them refer with a
Canadian Flag
derisive note in their voices to the "Pearson pennant".


An hon. Member:: That is what it is.


Mitchell William Sharp: There it is again. The national symbol of Canada is being treated with derision.


Mr. MacEwan:: It is a Liberal flag.


Mitchell William Sharp: Throughout the world, wherever Canadians travel and wherever Canadian soldiers are buried, the maple leaf stands for Canada. I feel that hon. gentlemen opposite, when they allow their partisan feelings to overcome their reason, might take care before they cast slurs on what has come to be known as a symbol of Canada throughout the ages, or throughout a hundred years, which amounts to ages in our history.
Listening to this debate on the subamendment-and 1 think this is relevant because I am referring to remarks made by hon. gentlemen on the other side when speaking on the subamendment-I was shocked as well as disappointed by the recurring theme that the proposed flag, the three maple leaf flag which is also mentioned in the subamendment, constitutes an appeasement of Quebec. This theme recurs throughout. It recurs in the letters I get. I regret to say it has also occurred and recurred in the speeches of my hon. friends opposite. If my hon. friends opposite are determined to alienate not only Quebec but millions of English speaking Canadians like myself, that is the thing to go on saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: There is nothing whatever in the maple leaf design reminiscent of Quebec or of French Canada. The maple leaf is in fact the one generally acknowledged symbol of Canada. We have no other, and the one embodied in this resolution has the sanction of widespread acceptance and recognition. When I hear it suggested, as some hon. gentlemen opposite have suggested, that the maple leaf flag mentioned in the subamendment is appeasement of Quebec, I ask them this: Was the sovereign of the day seeking to appease Quebec when she approved the three maple leaves as the distinctive Canadian symbol on the Canadian coat of arms nearly 100 years ago? Was this appeasement of Quebec? Was King George V seeking to appease Quebec when he approved three red maple leaves as the Canadian symbol? Was the government of Canada seeking to appease Qubec when it designed the second world war discharge button with its three maple leaves? Was the

Canadian Flag
Canadian Legion seeking to appease Quebec when it adopted the maple leaf on its badge? I could go on, Mr. Speaker. This is what hon. gentlemen opposite are saying, that this is appeasement of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Which ones? Name them.


Mitchell William Sharp: As an English speaking Canadian representing an English speaking riding-


Mr. Bigg:: Mr Speaker, would the minister permit a question? I spoke for 40 minutes last night, and I never made any such statement at any time. You can count me out of that. I love Quebec as much as any other province of Canada. I hope the minister does, too, and will stop this partisan speech.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I listened with the greatest respect to the speech of my hon. friend, as I hope he will to my speech. There was as much politics in his speech as there is in mine. I am as sincere in my remarks on the flag as was my hon. friend. He made no disparaging remarks about Quebec in his speech, and I thank him for it. As an English speaking Canadian representing an English speaking riding, I resent the implication that this flag is appeasement of Quebec. If I believed that, I would vote against the resolution.
To return, Mr. Speaker, to the words of the subamendment and the particular proposal put forward in this house by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More), I do not think-I say this with all sincerity, and I am sure that anyone who looks at the proposition would agree-the proposed plebiscite with these four questions will advance the cause of the Canadian flag, nor will it advance Canadian unity. A plebiscite of this kind will do the very opposite. Everyone knows there are differences of opinion about the design of a Canadian flag; you do not have to have a plebiscite to determine that. When I consider the shades of opinion throughout the country on the flag, four questions would only begin to cover the vast panorama of ideas.


An hon. Member:: It is at least democracy.


Mitchell William Sharp: We do not need a plebiscite to prove that we are not all agreed as to what might be a preferable flag. The argument that those who would lose in such a plebiscite would be reconciled by the knowledge that they had been voted down is certainly the most fatuous of all propositions. In my view a plebiscite, regardless of the questions- these four or any others-would only serve

to harden attitudes that up to that time had been tentative, flexible, open to persuasion and tolerant.
Mr. Speaker, there is only one way by which Canada will have a national flag, and that is by the decision of this parliament. Let us live up to our responsibilities; let us get down to the business of making a decision. I do not mind a debate, but let us not have a filibuster; let us not have indefinite debate which has no purpose other than to avoid the taking of decisions.


William Heward Grafftey: Then give us a free vote. It is as simple as that.


Mitchell William Sharp: When I look back on the history of this country and at some of the great and momentous decisions that were taken, I do not find very much evidence of plebiscites. The only plebiscites that I have been able to find were not very satisfactory ones. I think we had some sort of a plebiscite on prohibition, which did not prevent anyone drinking. Then we had a plebiscite on national conscription, which I do not think did very much to cement the unity of this country.
I can imagine what Sir John A. Macdonald would have done with the idea of a plebiscite about confederation. You can just imagine the series of questions: Do you favour union of Ontario and Quebec? Do you favour union of Ontario and Quebec and the maritime provinces? Do you think Newfoundland should be in? And so on. One can imagine all the questions. Sir John A. Macdonald was a more sensible man; he knew that these great decisions are settled in parliament-and that is where this one is going to be settled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: If I may take another idol of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), did Sir Robert Borden take a plebiscite before he insisted upon the independence of Canada within the commonwealth?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, since I am brought in, does the hon. gentleman know that the Liberal party advocated a plebiscite in 1916 and 1917?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, that was a little before my time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Clyde Nowlan: You are out of your depth, anyway; it is away over your head.


Mitchell William Sharp: The Prime Minister of Canada has taken the lead by proposing the resolution for a distinctive national flag in which he has endeavoured to embody Canada's national symbol. He has taken the responsible course of a responsible statesman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: I invite my hon. friends opposite, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, to abandon their negative role, which gets its best representation by this futile subamendment and which is doing so much damage to his party, and for that reason to the country, and join with the Prime Minister in achieving another great step forward in our development as a nation.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, now that the government has taken part in this flag debate and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) has said what has hung so heavily on his soul and has bothered his conscience over the last few days, I want to now take part in this debate on the flag. Regardless of what it may be called by any newspaper or any other news media, and even by the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any other member of this house, who have said this is a filibuster, I intend to take my part in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Thus, Mr. Speaker, I want to take my rightful opportunity as a member of the House of Commons to state my view and express my opinion on this very important subject. We listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce start his speech with a lot of drivel and end up with emotion. He wanted to impress on the House of Commons and the country the fact that he held the red ensign dear to his heart, but he felt that it should be discarded and another flag substituted in its place. With regard to the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) that the red ensign should include something of French Canada as one of the founding races in this country-the fleur-de-lis-the Minister of Trade and Commerce immediately charged that this was appeasement. I ask, appeasement to whom? Is it not appeasement to take away the union jack from the red ensign? I ask, appeasement to whom? I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the minister had not made his speech, because I had not intended to speak in this vein. I am not of British origin and I am not of French
Canadian Flag
origin; I am proud to be of Ukrainian origin and I am also a good Canadian.
It is furthest from my thoughts and mind to divide the people of this country. I think it is our duty in this House of Commons to bring people together in a democratic fashion in the best way possible. It is our duty to bring them to agreement. But we are not finding agreement in this country today. It makes me as a Canadian other than of French or English origin bleed to find the two founding races fighting between themselves, causing disunity for political and partisan reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is not so in this party.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I believe in a democracy for this country. This is what all Canadians who are used to living in a democratic way believe in. They are used to having the opportunities presented by a democratic country. Opportunity is the dearest thing democracy gives to the people-opportunity to work, opportunity to realize ambitions, opportunity to voice opinions. But this is what the present government is trying to take away from the people of this country. This government has set its course and has said that the people of the country shall have what the government gives them. It is all very well to say that if any legislation which is passed is found to be detrimental to certain areas of the country the government which initiated that legislation, if it is still in office, or an ensuing government, can change the legislation so that the people receive equal benefits. But once a flag is approved it cannot be changed. And who takes the responsibility in this case?


Mitchell William Sharp: Parliament.


Michael Starr: Do 19 million Canadians take that responsibility? No. When the final vote is counted in this house, about 150 members of parliament, whipped into line in most cases, will say to the Canadian people: "This is the flag the Prime Minister told us to vote for. This is the flag we voted for, and this is the flag you are going to have for all time".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps this might be a good time for the Chair to intervene


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is too late.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is my duty to remind the hon. member who

Canadian Flag
has the floor that he should as much as possible bear in mind the amendment and the subamendment which are now before the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hear protests, but the part of the hon. member's speech which was heard by the Chair referred to the question of a plebiscite. I realize that the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) has to move to his subject, but I would ask him to keep in mind in due course the decision reached yesterday by the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I always try to abide by your ruling. I have respect for any occupant of the chair in this House of Commons. But my conception of the situation is that the subamendment proposes that the people of Canada should have the opportunity to express their opinion on four distinct questions. My remarks up to this moment have been directed to that and I do not intend to stray away from it. If you feel I am straying away from the subamendment at any time, please bring the fact to my attention; but up till now I beg to differ with Your Honour, even though I respect your decision. I still think I am keeping within the subamendment now before the house.
I suggest that other vital matters which have come before the people of this country, matters not so much in the federal field of jurisdiction because the opportunity has not presented itself in the federal field, but matters within provincial areas of jurisdiction and municipal areas of jurisdiction, have not been settled by the bodies governing those areas but by referendums which have been submitted to the people. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, if we continue on this path- and I believe this with all my heart-we will cause more disunity in this country than we have ever seen before, and we will never be able to heal it. I appeal to the government. It is not too late now. I speak with all sincerity when I say, give the people of this country the opportunity to say what they want.
The subamendment provides four choices. Those who wish to retain the red ensign will have the opportunity by secret ballot to indicate their feeling. Those who want modification of the red ensign can by secret ballot say so. Those who want the three maple leaves flag can so indicate by secret ballot. Those who want the one maple leaf design can also speak. And we know from

experience over the years that the people of this country will abide by the majority decision.
We are divided in this house, Mr. Speaker, and we are divided over this subamendment. There are those in the house who feel that the red ensign should be retained because it has served this country for so many years. Children have been born under it and immigrants have come here and found freedom under it. I speak as one whose parents came to this country at the ages of 17 and 16. They married here without a friend. Why did they come to Canada, Mr. Speaker? They came here to find freedom of opportunity, justice and liberty, things they never enjoyed in the country from whence they came. Because that flag gave them that opportunity, they worked hard. The opportunity was there and they were able to make a living in this country. They were able to set the foundation for people like myself to participate in the active life of this country, and they were, as I am, good Canadians. Surely those who would like to see modifications of the red ensign have a desire to give a prominent place to the two founding races.
I tome from people who believe in tradition and who do not throw tradition out the window when it has served its usefulness. I come from people who do not discard tradition in order to appease. I think it is good tradition that will not allow people to throw their parents out the door when they become too old. People have a responsibility to look after those parents. All of these things are part and parcel of human nature and upbringing.
We also have the proposal for the three maple leaf flag by the Prime Minister and the government. Surely those people who want to support it should have the opportunity of doing so by secret ballot, because here in this house we find the government as well as some other hon. members supporting this proposal. We also have a group of members in this house who feel that the one maple leaf flag is the flag that should be adopted for Canada. Mr. Speaker, we are divided in this house on this vital issue. I submit the country is being divided, and is perhaps even now divided. Many people have very strong feelings about this issue and unless we give them an opportunity to express those feelings by secret ballot, and experience the satisfaction that they have had a voice, we will never heal the wounds that will be inflicted upon this nation. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this

is the only way we can remove the flag issue from partisan politics.
Most of us have our constituents and their votes in mind when we vote on issues in this house. Let us take this issue out of partisan politics. I appeal to the Prime Minister to play no favourite with anyone, and let the people of this country decide this issue. All of us in this house have politics in mind during the debate on any issue, because we are all here as politicians. Most of the members in this house conduct polls in their ridings to find out the feeling of the majority of the people. Is that the procedure we are going to follow in deciding how to vote on this issue? Certainly that is the procedure most members will follow. I am sure every member representing a French Canadian riding will follow that procedure and vote in favour of the three maple leaf design because that is the will of the majority of the people in Quebec. What consideration is being given to the feelings of the people of Ontario? How are we going to heal the wounds that will be inflicted on half the people in a riding because they are divided evenly on this issue? Should one follow the wishes expressed by one half of the people in the hope that the remainder will forget about the situation? Certainly those people will not forget.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge the Prime Minister and the government to take this issue out of the arena of political partisanship in which we have found ourselves embroiled. Perhaps to do so will necessitate the spending of more money. Surely we are spending money in this country for various other reasons probably not as important as this. In my opinion this whole issue is one of the most important to come before this house since I became a member in 1952.
Let us consider for a moment the effect of the adoption of a new flag on the unity of this country. Do the Prime Minister and the government think that the adoption of the three maple leaf flag will bring unity to this country? That thought is far from the truth, Mr. Speaker.
As I said earlier, I am not of British origin, but I have often looked at British people and marvelled at the tolerance they have displayed. I do not know what would happen in another country if a symbol of the people's heritage was removed from the flag. I am not sure that there would not be a revolution. People's hearts must bleed when they witness that happening. Who is going to take down the flag which has stood in this country for so many years as a symbol to
Canadian Flag
the people who came and built this country and provided the opportunity to those of other races to come here and enjoy the liberty provided under this flag? Surely their hearts will bleed as a result of the adoption of the proposal of the government.
In view of human nature one cannot expect to take away something which is dear to the people's hearts, throw it out the window and have unity. Unity will never be created in this country if we follow that course, and I appeal to the Prime Minister and the government to abandon this mad policy. Give the people of this country an opportunity to speak silently one by one. I am sure they will make a choice and they will all agree with the choice of the majority. I am certain these people will not agree with a decision made by 150 or 160 members in this house, which is rammed down their throats. Those members will have to say they combined to adopt this flag for Canada and the people must accept it whether they like it or not. They must say to the people, this is your flag and no one can amend it.
Mr. Speaker, I think we must pursue a solution to this problem with a little more sanity. I think the government must reconsider its position and should not be adamant in its stand. Let us consider how the three maple leaf design was introduced. Let us consider the tortuous path its introduction travelled. The first unveiling of this three maple leaf design was carried out by the Prime Minister before a group of newspapermen in his own home. Even the cabinet was not aware of this design.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Michael Starr: Even the caucus did not know about the design. In fact, no one knew about it other than the Prime Minister, and he wanted to observe the reaction to it and called the members of the press-


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order.


Michael Starr: Do you have a point of order or a question of privilege, not that it really makes much difference?


An hon. Member:: This is just an excuse.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, irrespective of the remarks just made, my rising on a point of order to obtain the ruling of Mr. Speaker is not an excuse. A decision was rendered yesterday afternoon, and I think the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) has now

Canadian Flag
turned exclusively to a discussion of the main resolution before this house. That decision indicated clearly that a debate on a subamendment must be limited to the subject of the subamendment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the solicitude of the Minister of Justice does not command very much support. He stood silent when his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) was speaking. Surely we have not come to an occasion in this House of Commons when every time the Minister of Justice feels that anything said on this side contravenes the rules, as he would interpret them, he has to be listened to. Why was he so silent? Why did he sit so inert when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking?
Sir, the hon. gentleman who was speaking may not be speaking in a way that appeals to the sentiments of hon. gentlemen opposite, but if ever there was an hon. gentleman speaking with authority of heart and experience, it is the hon. gentleman for Ontario (Mr. Starr).


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Minister of Justice has intervened in what I have said, but certainly I am not going into the history of both parties, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) did. I am staying entirely within a discussion of the subamendment, and have referred to the flags that subamendment has proposed as choices for the people of this country. I referred to the tortuous steps that were taken to introduce the new flag in an attempt to obliterate all tradition of this country. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce describes as appeasement the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to have a fleur-de-lis on the red ensign, in an attempt to give the prominence to the founding races of this country which is their due, that is improper description. I have not endeavoured to go into the whole tortuous speech that he made.


John George Diefenbaker: And false, too.


Michael Starr: He said that this was a gratuitous piece of appeasement in order to satisfy the French founding race of this country. After the unveiling to selected members of the press gallery the Prime Minister, without consulting his cabinet, without consulting the caucus or parliament, unveiled this flag before the Canadian Legion at their convention in Winnipeg. Only then did he go to the cabinet and ask for approval.

These are the steps taken. After that he came to the Liberal caucus and got their approval. Then he came to parliament. Meanwhile, sir, what was happening? Pins were appearing all over this country and being sold over the counter, on which there was the three maple leaf design, before parliament had an opportunity of discussing it. There were bathing suits in this design, too; they looked a lot nicer. The proposed design for a Canadian flag is now being put to commercial use. Is this the way in which a flag design for this country should be treated? We have bumper stickers, flags put on twigs and flown upside down to be used by reporters for the purpose of pictures, as happened last Saturday to the Leader of the Opposition and me. This is being foisted upon the people, and I think it is wrong. I think the people are beginning to resent this procedure.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister and his government to reconsider their position. This emblem that has been proposed by the Prime Minister is being used for every other purpose except a flag. The Minister without Portfolio has ordered 100,000 bumper stickers. [Translation]


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I did not place an order for 100,000 bumper strips, as stated by the hon. member for Ontario. However, I know that so many people are asking for them throughout Canada that 100,000 would be far from enough to meet the demand.


Mr. Lambert:: There is no point of order. [Text]


Michael Starr: I was absolutely right, the Minister without Portfolio has ordered 100,000 bumper stickers. This is the purpose for which this proposed emblem is being used, even before it has been hoisted on a flagpole to be respected by the people of this country. This design is being made up in bathing suits, bumper stickers, and boloney is being sold under this insignia. Is this the sort of emblem of which we, as Canadians, can be proud? All of these stickers are being made, boloney, beer and all the other products are being sold under this insignia. This is what we are being asked to adopt as a flag. Everything else that has stood for our flag in the past is being dumped out of the window.


Guy Favreau: I rise on a point of order. I suggest that it is up to the hon. member for Ontario to show that the type of discussion he is giving us now has anything to do with

the question of whether or not the questionnaire should read a certain way, as the hon. member for Regina City has suggested in his subamendment.


Michael Starr: There are four choices listed in this subamendment, and I am discussing each and every one of them. I am discussing how they came about. I am saying that the red ensign has been our flag for years. Sacrifices have been made under it, freedom and opportunity have been found under it. I am discussing also how the three maple leaf flag has been brought about; that is all I am doing. These four questions are in the subamendment.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Wasting the time of the house; filibuster.


Guy Favreau: -I suggest that what the hon. member is doing now is making a speech which has nothing to do with the drafting of the questionnaire. It deals with the merits of the original resolution before the house. The decision rendered yesterday directed this ought not to be done.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I speak to the point of order? Before you entered the chamber this afternoon, sir, the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking. He dealt with the general subject of what he called the filibuster, gave us a lecture on that and made a personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: In his absence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He discussed the Conservative party, its present position and its future. He then made a reference to the Leader of the Opposition and his address on a television program last week. He drew attention to the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition that some symbol of French Canada might appear on our flag. These were some of the subjects he discussed without interruption by the Speaker. It was a wide open debate. We ought not now to be denied a similar wide open debate just because the Minister of Justice is attempting to intervene.
There was no interruption from this side of the house. I suggest to you that reference should be made to Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 110. At the bottom of the page you will read this:
Freedom of speech is a sacred principle and if there is a place where it should be fully respected that place is the parliament of the nation, and it is
Canadian Flag
the Speaker's responsibility to see that this principle is not infringed upon.
The Minister of Justice is attempting to infringe upon the freedom of speech of the hon. member for Ontario when it was allowed, without interruption, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I suggest to you, sir, that the member for Ontario should be permitted to speak with the utmost freedom on this subject.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on this issue our party does not intend to follow the partisan attitude and the political tones that have been injected into this flag issue by the Prime Minister and the government. I say that, sir, in view of what has been said by the Prime Minister. He has taken away the opportunity of the members of his party to vote according to their conscience. They must follow the line of the government on this question. He has stated his government will stand or fall on this issue, and that makes it a political issue. We do not intend to follow that line in this party. We believe this is a highly emotional issue and that the people of Canada should have an opportunity to voice their opinion by means of a referendum. There should be a vote by secret ballot in this country. I say this procedure will bring satisfaction to the people of Canada because they will have had an opportunity, as they have in the past, to decide the matter by a vote of the majority. It will bring unity to this country. We will have a country of which we can be proud, with a flag that will be chosen by the people themselves and not by politicians in this House of Commons who must knuckle under the whip of the party.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the privilege to rise in the flag debate at this time and to be the first to congratulate the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) who made such an eloquent speech in defence of democracy. I must reiterate his words in reference to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). I was amazed and discouraged to see a minister holding such an honourable position making such a partisan, prejudiced speech as he did in reference to the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and in reference to their right to get up in this house and speak in the interests of Canada's very distinctive national flag.
I want to support unequivocally the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and also to support the subamendment

Canadian Flag
proposed on Thursday last by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More). In my opening remarks I want to say that the undemocratic principle injected into the flag issue by the Prime Minister, in the manner in which he introduced the matter into the house, means that the Prime Minister has sown a wind and he will reap a whirlwind. I can substantiate that statement by an article which appeared lately in the press, referring to the plebiscite or referendum, an article by that well known and eminent writer, Patrick Nicholson, under date of August 12. He said:
The campaign strategists of the Liberal party have been halted in their tracks-stunned.
As most, but not all, Canadians know very well, parliament has long been stalled in its work largely because of "the flag issue." As the majority, but by no means all, of Canadians are uneasily conscious, this is dividing the country even more disastrously than the stormiest issue recorded in our history books-
He goes on to state what a recent poll showed:
It quickly became obvious that "Mike's maple" had attracted overwhelming support among French Canadians, while the lukewarm enthusiasm for it elsewhere was gravely tempered by the resentment, as some M.P.'s have expressed it, that this was "yet another concession to French Canada."
The lopsidedness of cross Canada sentiment on the flag issue has just been revealed by a nationwide poll, whose sensational results were given front page columns in Ottawa's thoughtful French language newspaper, Le Droit
The poll discovered that a majority of Canadians, in every province except Quebec, prefer the Canadian ensign to the maple leaf design. It also ascertained that about one third of all Canadians would prefer some other flag, such as the union jack or another design, or were ignorant or indifferent about the whole issue.
I do not want to be called to order on this, Mr. Speaker, and so I would like to point out that it refers to the subject of the subamendment in that it deals with whether we should have a maple leaf or a compromise on the red ensign. He goes on to say in this article:
The significance of these figures, in the eyes of all Liberal strategists thinking in terms of an election, is that they clearly show that the flag issue would bring disastrous Liberal losses in nine provinces, and leave that party largely as the political arm of French Canada.
This is a salient point. As the hon. member for Ontario so eloquently put it, we do not want to have an issue which, when developed and brought to a conclusion, will divide our country and bring disunity to this great nation, something that will take several generations to heal. Therefore it is evident to most Canadians and to us here in this house that we should take the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and have a plebiscite on

this matter to give Canadians a chance to look at it on a compromise basis, and decide in the quiet of their own hearts what should be a flag for Canada.
Many Canadians today are asking a number of questions which I think should be answered by the various members sitting opposite. I was very glad this afternoon to see at last a member of the cabinet get up in his place and speak, after having been silent so long, but let us hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Benidick-son). Let us hear from the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn), from the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Honey), from the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Temple), from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), from the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd), and from many others opposite who have sat silent. Let them answer some of these questions.
Why did the Prime Minister decide to bring the flag issue on to the Canadian political scene at this time? It was not in the throne speech.
Why does he not allow a free vote in parliament at this time?
Why does he want to hold the threat of an election over the heads of Canadians?
Why does he want to place this issue ahead of other more important pieces of legislation facing this parliament?
Why does he want to add this most divisive issue to the already over-charged political scene?
Why is he not striving for unity in Canada rather than sowing seeds of disunity?
Why is he taking the advice of the wrong people in these questionable decisions?
Why is he relegating what was once a great Canadian political party into a petty, selfish, partisan group representing only the political arm of French Canada?
Why does the Prime Minister want to take the Christian symbols off our flag?
Why does he jeoparidize the political wellbeing of so many of his own party members?
Why this all or nothing stand of the Prime Minister?
Why does the Prime Minister want to bury the past?
Why does the Prime Minister not want to set up a committee of both houses of parliament, as Mr. King did in 1945, to come to an agreement on this issue? Why? Why? Why?

These and many more questions are being asked by the people of our great nation.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, and people outside Canada also are asking these questions too, and this is causing me a lot of worry. When the peoples of the outside world look through the window and find us divided in our parliament over this contentious issue they ask the same questions, and the only person who is getting any satisfaction out of it is Mr. Khrushchev himself.
Let us take a look at what some of our people are saying about the plebiscite or referendum, and I think we would do well to take a look at outside opinion as well as expressing our own viewpoints in this house. In deciding to rise in this debate and give my own personal viewpoint I also want to give the viewpoints of the constituency I represent.
Last fall, prior to this debate being introduced, I sent a questionnaire to the people of my riding, a questionnaire which had five questions on it, the first being, "Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign or a change?" In order to get a cross section of opinion I did not write just to my executive committee or my own personal friends. I directed the questionnaire to the reeves and councillors of the 25 municipal governments that lie within the boundaries of my riding, some 150 people in number, 25 municipalities, each with six councillors and an elected reeve. I felt these people would represent the opinion of the people of that area very well. Among other questions, one was, "Are you in favour of unemployment insurance for farm labourers?" Another was: "Are you in favour of lotteries?" But the first question was on the flag, and without exception the replies I received said they were in favour of the red ensign or a modification of it. To me this indicates that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is right in asking that this issue be decided by the people of Canada through means of a referendum. I think, also, that my hon. friend from Regina City (Mr. More) was right in putting forward this subamendment specifying certain alternatives so that everybody might have the democratic privilege of making a decision on this issue.
Many hon. members have referred to the position taken by the Royal Canadian Legion, among them the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) in his eloquent address the other day. I think the voice of the Royal Canadian Legion, of the Canadian corps association, of the Orange Lodge of
Canadian Flag
British America and of other organizations of this character should be given full consideration. I might add that the British Israel world federation has produced a pamphlet about the flag setting out its origin, its symbolism and its significance. I would recommend this publication to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) who spent so much time in his amateur endeavours in heraldry before coming up with the maple leaf flag. I suggest that if he has not studied this pamphlet he might do so, because what is set out here is well worth reading. The heraldry and traditions of the red ensign are given, as well as the origins of the union jack, and so on.
I should like now to read into the record some comments regarding a plebiscite by Mr. Heesaker, dominion president of the Canadian corps association. He says:
The comments of our Prime Minister that those who support the retention of the Canadian red ensign are endeavouring to pressure the government into an election, have been made by him to simply confuse the flag issue. It is not the supporters of the present Canadian national flag who have been pushing this flag issue to the priority decision position that it has at this date reached in parliament, but it is the Prime Minister's personal endeavour to place his flag design on the flag poles of this country that has resulted in this issue reaching such controversial prominence. With such divided opinion through Canada on the flag question, we cannot understand why Mr. Pearson will not allow the people of Canada the opportunity to choose between the Canadian red ensign and his new suggested maple leaf choice.
We feel the supporters of the Canadian red ensign are more democratic in their viewpoint than the supporters of the maple leaf design for they are willing for this question to be submitted in referendum form to the people of Canada and to abide by their decision, where the maple leaf flag supporters are reluctant to trust the approval of their proposed new flag to the people of Canada! We do not wish to see our government waste money either, for it is the people of Canada who supply the money. The flag question ballot could be placed in with the regular voting ballots in the next scheduled general election of this country, and there most certainly is no need of either an election to be called, nor a ten million dollar immediate referendum when the question can be placed before the voters of this country when the next regular general election is scheduled, and in the meantime, the present national flag should be flown as it has been for the past many years until the people of Canada signify to the contrary.
Our organization fully realizes that there are many important national problems before the present members of the House of Commons that should most definitely take precedence over the flag question, and again we reiterate, that it is not the supporters of the retention of the Canadian red ensign as Canada's national flag, who are forcing this issue to the foreground in parliament.
It goes on to say:
In conclusion, I would like to mention that for the past half a century or more this country's prime

Canadian Flag
ministers and members of parliament have always indicated that Canada's veterans' views were respected statements by citizens who had served their country well in war, and were continuing to serve it loyally in peace through the welfare and service work of their organizations. During the past few weeks because of our present Prime Minister's open combat attitude against the veterans organizations views on the flag question, politicians, newspapers and general citizens, have openly ridiculed the ex-servicemen, who down through the years since 1900 have served Canada both home and abroad. This type of criticism by those particularly in government authority has damaged the prestige and character of "service organizations" and we trust that it was never the intention of our present government to do so.
There are others, in addition to the organizations I have mentioned, which support the red ensign and which have made strong pleas for a referendum. Here is a copy of an open letter to the Prime Minister. It states:
Please endorse red ensign which is my flag as third generation Canadian.
Our union jack symbolizes freedom without licence, equity without denial of personal rights to free men under it. Appeasement of minorities unjustly penalizes majority, and fatal to tolerant unity.
Here is a lady writing from Winnipeg, Manitoba. She puts her plea in the form of a little poem, and I think it would be timely to place it on record, too:
The Ensign
This is the flag for which men died In bloody, and ugly, and nightmare battle,
This is the flag!
This is the flag which death-bound rattle of guns Could never still,
This is the flag!
And now they fling its tatters to the waves,
And cry with glee, and trample underfoot Bright honour's face,
0	Canada, O Canada	
1	weep for all our race!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but he did indicate a moment ago that he would be referring to messages and a poem which, he said, had relevance to a referendum and to the red ensign. I heard no reference at all in those citations to anything having to do with a referendum or a plebiscite and in the circumstances it is my duty to remind the hon. member of the decision of the house yesterday.
While I am quite prepared to give the hon. member all possible latitude, I feel his remarks should be confined at this stage to the specific point which is now before the house.


Richard Russell Southam: Thank you. I can assure Your Honour I do not wish to depart very far from the rules of relevancy. But since

other hon. members have been allowed a certain flexibility I thought I was sufficiently in order.
To revert to the subamendment, it is my belief, as I have stated earlier, that this matter should be placed before the people of Canada, now that it has given rise to such widespread controversy. I feel, as the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) said so eloquently, that the people should have an opportunity at some time in the future to go into a booth and mark an "x" opposite the flag of their choice. If this were done, we would never be faced with the accusation that the steps we are now taking are undemocratic and that such an important issue was being decided on a political basis. At this time in our history we should demonstrate to the people of Canada and to the world in general that we are democratic in our principles and that we solve our problems through democratic procedures. We on this side of the house should not be accused of filibustering at this time. We feel very deeply on this issue, which is one which goes to the hearts of our members. It is an emotional issue, not an economic one. If the Prime Minister would take this opportunity, which has been given to him by the Leader of the Opposition, to adopt a plebiscite, using the provisions outlined in the subamendment as a guide, I am sure we could settle this question without further controversy. I am confident this is the way in which the people of Canada feel it should be settled.
In closing my remarks I should like to say that I am definitely in favour of the retention of the red ensign. I say this on my own behalf and on behalf of my constituents, and I believe I am speaking also for most of the members of my party. I believe they would be agreeable to the compromise solution outlined by the hon. member for Regina City, and once more I should like to reiterate what others have said before me, namely that any country which dissociates itself from the past will have a questionable future.


Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question of the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) ?


Mr. Plourde:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Two members have risen at the same time. I believe the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) is asking permission to put a

question to the hon. member for Moose Mountain, if he wishes to answer.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has advocated this process of referendum in the selection of a flag. Would he be good enough to indicate to the house what countries have selected flags in this fashion?


Richard Russell Southam: I would like to answer that question by asking another question. I would like to ask the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) what country has disposed of its flag by the method now being taken by this government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Plourde: Is the hon. member trying to imply that he does not want a flag by proposing that the referendum be held at the next general election?


Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, before entering into this debate with regard to the subamendment I wish to also voice my approval of what was said by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). I offer my congratulations to the hon. member, who so ably expressed my personal opinions and I am sure expressed the feeling of everyone in the party to which I have the honour to belong. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we are now engaged in what is a most unnecessary and a most critical debate. It is unnecessary because the question should never have come before parliament; it is most critical because it is causing serious emotional complications throughout Canada, it threatens to divide our country beyond repair, and it is bringing discredit to the House of Commons at the present time.
We in parliament are spending time on an issue with regard to which the Canadian people wish to express their individual opinions. The answer is obvious in the subamendment, that Canadians must never be forced to accept a flag design contrary to the wishes of the majority; and it is their democratic right to be allowed to express their opinion. I offer no apologies for being somewhat repetitious. Repetition to correct an injustice is always justifiable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: All Canadians ask is for
justice, and for this flag resolution to be railroaded through is not justice. We want justice with a purpose and we want justice without partisanship. A lot more important things
Canadian Flag
could be done in the House of Commons at the present time than arguing about this flag issue. In my opinion the flag issue should never have come before the House of Commons. We see, in an editorial which appeared in the last night's Journal what people think of this debate. I believe this is a particularly important editorial and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read it in part:
Any flag that Mr. Pearson might ram through in these circumstances would serve as a symbol of division rather than unity.
How true that is:
Canada cannot afford that.
And as to legislation-the cost of Mr. Pearson's clinging to his course is indefinite postponement of the following business-
Then the editorial cites eight important bills that are before the house at the present time and are being sidetracked while we continue in the house, on this divisive flag issue, trying to obtain justice for the people of Canada.


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


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: Certainly.


Maurice John Moreau: I was interested in the hon. member's statement that he agreed with everything the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) had said. As I recall it, the hon. member for Ontario stated that this is the most important thing to face parliament since he has been a member. I wonder how the hon. member reconciles that statement with what he is now saying.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: The answer to that question is obvious, Mr. Speaker. This important debate has been created because of the fact that the people of Canada insist on having a voice in what is going on in this house, and this is being denied by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: Canadian Flag
with experience. Where do we find experience in this issue? History relates experience. Can we learn through history; can we learn to avoid mistakes by the study of history? I claim that we can, and we should and we must. Canada insists on going from crisis to crisis. If we are not in an international crisis, if we are not in an international war, we create a crisis among ourselves. It seems to me that the crises we create in our own country, crises of our own making, mean we are happiest when we are in a turmoil.
The flag resolution of the government is causing great and deep bitterness, not only in parliament but particularly throughout this country. It is the greatest crisis since the first world war. This is where we get back into history. I would say it is probably the greatest internal crisis since confederation. I can recall, as I am sure other members of this house can, that one of the greatest crises we had in Canada was in 1911 when the reciprocity treaty was being brought into this house. How did they settle that question? The issue was so serious that it was dividing the east from the west-western Canadians wanted reciprocity; eastern Canadians did not want reciprocity. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in his wisdom, said, "This is a question for the people". He went to the people. Reciprocity was defeated; but everyone in Canada was satisfied-and they were satisfied because a plebiscite had been held.
Let us come down to 1917. This is another point in history. In 1917 we were at war. Conscription was considered unnecessary. The government of the time did not think they would have a plebiscite for conscription; they thought they would enforce it. This was in spite of the protests of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said this was an issue that should be sent to the people. Mr. Speaker, all of us in this house know that the fact this issue was not sent to the people was one of the biggest mistakes made in Canada. It created division in our country, division so great that it has taken a whole generation to clear it up.
Now let me come to 1944 when we had a similar situation. Canada was at war. However, precedents offered guidance. The government of the day, under the leadership of Mr. Mackenzie King, realized that the conscription issue was something which would divide our country and asked for a plebiscite on the question. In spite of the urgency of wartime we took time to hold a plebiscite. Naturally some people were not satisfied with the result, but in general there

was no resentment and it kept the country from being divided.
Those were times of war, Mr. Speaker. Today there is no war; at least, there is no war as far as this country is concerned. There is no urgency to this matter. We have had the present flag for at least 40 years and it has been our official flag since 1945. Why do we have to rush into this question and decide it now when during the course of our previous history it has been shown on several occasions that on an issue of this type only a plebiscite can clear the matter up? This issue today, if it is not dealt with by means of a plebiscite, promises to create the greatest cleavage Canada has ever seen, and I say that knowing the sentiments of the people throughout the country, having spoken with them from coast to coast. This crisis is the result of an ill-conceived step on the part of the government. The flag issue has become political when it should be outside party politics. The government should never have forced a particular design of flag on the country and said: Either the flag is accepted or we will have an election. This matter is too serious to treat lightly, in a "take it or else" fashion. This is something which must be discussed. It is not a question which is going to affect us only today; it will affect our country for generations to come. We want our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren to say that we have a beautiful flag. Therefore we must be careful to give them a flag which will make them proud to be Canadians. This flag issue, if properly handled, can solve the problem of national unity, there is no doubt about that. If it is handled properly our national unity will be stronger than it has ever been in the past. A national referendum, as suggested in the subamendment, will overcome any resentment. The people must decide this issue, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I could go into the history of the red ensign but I realize that I would probably be speaking outside the terms of the subamendment. Suffice it to say that the red ensign has represented the united life of our country. It has represented Canada in peace, in war, in commerce. It is the emblem of our nation and is recognized throughout the world. It also indicates the design of Canadian history. It shows our association with that great organization, the British commonwealth of nations. It has a glorious history. The history of how it came about is, of course, well known to this house; but let

me briefly say this. The three Christian crosses of St. George, St. Patrick and St. Andrew are part of our tradition and history. We just do not eliminate such things easily. We must not allow ourselves to discard all our traditions. The shield is of course traditional. It represents parts of Canada and denotes the great history of our founding races in generations past, and I hope for generations to come.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, why is it necessary under these circumstances to eliminate the union jack from our flag, whatever may be the design decided upon? That question has never been answered. Why is it necessary to have a second flag and call it the union jack? Has any other country in the world two flags? I do not know of one. I do not see why we should have two flags. Is one flag to be flown in one part of Canada and a second to be flown in the second part of the country? Would that be in the best interests of a united Canada? Would it not differentiate between parts of Canada and create a more serious division? I say, let us deal with this subject by creating unity, not division, in our country.
Some people complain about our present ensign because its design is similar to the British merchant marine flag. But what more honourable organization could it resemble? The British merchant marine has been the organization which has kept alive the British commonwealth. It has done more for the progress of the world than any other organization. Why should we not be proud to belong to, and be associated in our emblems with, that great commonwealth of nations?
On the other hand, a design has been proposed which this house is asked to accept, they say without argument. This design represents the merchant marine of another nation, a nation not particularly friendly to this country. Why should we accept their design and discard one with such tradition and connections with the commonwealth of British peoples? Many flags of different countries resemble each other. Sometimes when travelling around Europe one must almost take out the geography book to see which flag he is looking at. There may be a little variation here and there, with the same colours being changed around in different ways. But there is nothing wrong in having a flag which resembles another flag. These are all petty criticisms and are ineffective.
The red ensign has been accepted as Canada's flag. It is known throughout the world as Canada's flag. People throughout the world 20220-441
Canadian Flag
do not know what we are talking about when we say we want a new flag. How long would it take Canada to produce another flag which would be recognized throughout the world as such, as the Canadian red ensign is now so recognized? The question is, Mr. Speaker, where are we going from here? What do we mean by a distinctive flag? In my opinion a distinctive flag is one which we can recognize as Canadian, wn.ch will be recognized throughout the world as Canadian, one which will be approved by Canadians, is acceptable to Canadians, and will unite Canadians. That is what the subamendment wants to bring about, and it is exactly what we are after. The people wish to have a voice in the choice of a flag. The people want to indicate which flag should be adopted. A referendum will not only give us an indication of their choice but create unity, which I believe is very important.
It is not a dereliction of the duty of the members of this House of Commons to suggest that this issue should be referred to the people. I think this suggestion indicates we have confidence in the people of our country to choose that with which they will be satisfied. A decision to adopt a flag without a referendum I believe is an insult to the intelligence of the people of this country who wish to express their opinion.


Guy Favreau: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: Certainly.


Guy Favreau: Does the hon. member not think or believe that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was correct when he stated that under the British system of principles a plebiscite was a negation of the existence of parliament?


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: I am sorry, I did not understand the last part of the question.


Guy Favreau: Does the member feel the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was correct when he argued that under the British system a reference to a plebiscite was the very negation of the existence of parliament?


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain what the hon. minister is referring to, but I should like to state that the history of our country would indicate, as evidenced by the several examples I cited, that a referendum is the answer to this kind of issue.


An hon. Member:: You do not agree with your leader.

Canadian Flag


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: I do not question my leader's statement at all, but I do suggest the issue he may have been discussing was probably something entirely different from and unrelated to this type of issue.


An hon. Member:: He was referring to conscription.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: I am not sure what the issue is you are referring to and therefore cannot discuss it more thoroughly.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I believe the holding of a referendum would constitute a compliment to the people of Canada. The government has indicated that it obtained a mandate as a result of the last election and now has authority to bring in a new flag. In my opinion that suggestion is entirely wrong and I emphatically disagree with it. The members of the government party must remember that they formed a minority government and were elected by a minority vote in this country. They must also remember that very few voters knew there was a flag plank in their platform. In my opinion 99 per cent of the voting public did not realize there was a flag plank in the Liberal party's platform. The majority of people are amazed to now learn of the existence of that plank. I am sure had they known there was a flag issue, as some of them must have known, they were not aware of the proposed design. It is my belief there is not one man in this House of Commons today who had any idea about the proposed flag design. I do not agree with the suggestion that because the government obtained what it has referred to as a mandate from the people of this country, most of whom had not the slightest idea there was to be a new flag, nor of course of any proposed design, it should be allowed to force a flag upon the country. I think the suggestion that the government has obtained a mandate in respect of the flag issue is absolutely without foundation.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this flag issue and the new design proposed by the government could not have been placed before this parliament at a worse time. We have a splinter parliament and we are creating a splinter nation. We need a unified nation. We should not carry this debate to a point of creating an irreparable division of the country.
If there is a desire on the part of the people of this country to have a new flag perhaps we should go to the Indian citizens and ask them their preference. Those citizens have lived under our flag since we came to this country and took it from them. I have

not heard one Indian express a desire for a new flag.
There are millions of Europeans in this country. We have listened to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). He is of European origin and has voiced the opinion of millions of citizens of other racial origins who have adopted Canada and its emblems, and fought for Canada under the red ensign. These people have not expressed complaints but are proud to be Canadians. I suggest it is extremely questionable that the majority of the people in Canada today wish to replace our present red ensign.
I am sure the people of Canada do not resent the maple leaf as one of our national emblems but rather are very proud of it. The people of Canada do resent being forced to accept something without being allowed to express an opinion. They resent arrogance of any kind but particularly when it is displayed in respect of a most serious issue of this kind.
Mr. Speaker, I am here in this chamber to represent my constituents. Some members of this house have suggested they are not here to represent their constituents but to express their own personal opinions. I repeat that I speak and work for my constituents and can say that the majority insist there be no change. I have received hundreds of letters asking me to oppose any change in the present flag.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to ask a question. He has said he is here to represent his constituents. Does he not think that under our parliamentary system he is properly here to represent all of Canada and not just his constituents?


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question I should point out that it is absolutely obvious that my constituency is part of this country of Canada. My constituents are proud to live in a part of Canada and their voices must be heard in this country.
I have received a few letters representing the other side of the argument, and I have had the privilege on several occasions to talk with the people who wish to have a new flag. I have asked these individuals whether they favour the adoption of this proposed design but have yet to hear one answer in the affirmative. Most of them were surprised when I told them the proposed design was the one they must accept without the benefit of choice. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that a stroll down the main street of Kamloops is similar

to a trip through a hornets' nest. Everyone asks me what we are doing about the flag issue and suggests that we should retain the red ensign.
Many think that the letters we have received are the result of an organized propaganda campaign. I represent ten Canadian Legion establishments in my constituency and I know how the members feel about this issue. These people have a right to voice their opinions in this country. They have fought for this country and their suggestions should be given some consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that press polls are not always accurate, but they do indicate that the people of Canada are two to one in favour of the retention of the red ensign. I challenge every member from British Columbia-I am glad to see there are at least two here-to ask their constituents to see what they should do on this flag issue. I ask these same men to ask their leader for a free voice on this vote. I ask them to vote according to their conscience and according to the wishes of their constituents. If they do this, I have no doubt what the result will be on this particular issue. I know we will have a plebiscite.
I do not believe that the holding of a plebiscite means it is necessary to have an election. I believe that the holding of a plebiscite could await the next general election. There is no hurry about this. We have had this flag for many years. The plebiscite could await the next general election and in this way it would not cost us anything at all, just a ballot. Then a flag would be chosen which would be acceptable to all the people.
I am not trained in heraldry. I do not know anything about flag design. I have no training in art, but I appreciate a good picture when I see it. I have some feeling when I look at a flag. I want to look at a flag of which I can be proud. I want to be able to say, "I am a Canadian; that is our flag; is it not beautiful?" There must be a certain amount of colour balance in this thing; I think that is the way you describe it. It must not be insipid. It must not look like a piece of wallpaper. It must have something of which you can really be proud. It must have some history. It must be something to which we can look forward with enthusiasm.
My constituents are protesting. There is something lacking in this particular suggestion for a new flag. They want to retain the red ensign. I do not believe we are going 20220-441J
Canadian Flag
to create more division in our country if another design, including some symbols of our historic background, is available. If democracy is to be made to work, we must respect the wishes of the people. People must be allowed to express their opinions. These people who are so anxious to preserve our present flag should not be restricted. Minorities should be allowed to express their opinions the same as majorities. A plebiscite will appease their antagonism. It would prevent national disunity. A plebiscite, as suggested in the subamendment, will leave no doubt as to what we should do.
As I say, this has become an extremely emotional issue, and this is the most dangerous thing that can happen to our confederation. As I have said, there is no hurry for a decision on this matter. A referendum can be held at any time. This is not an election issue and never should have been-considered as an election issue. There should! never have been any mention of an election in connection with this issue. It should have been dealt with in a reasonable way and the people should have been allowed to choose what they wish. It should have been outside party politics. This matter has become a purely partisan one in this house and we should not allow it to further divide our country, or we will be in for serious trouble.
A vote for a referendum, as I have suggested, is a vote for freedom of choice. It is a vote for unity within confederation. It is a vote for democratic principles and it is not necessarily a vote against the proposed flag. Is the government so confident of its design, is it so confident it is right that it is afraid to let the people vote on the issue? If the government feels the public are in favour of this new flag, what could they be afraid of? What would a plebiscite change? If they are right and the people are in favour of this, as they say, what are they afraid of? I appeal to the members of this house to let us have a national flag and not a party flag.


Mr. Boulanger:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: I shall be finished shortly, and then you can ask your question.
In closing, I should like to say this: I think that this plebiscite, as recommended in the subamendment, is the best thing for Canada at the present time. I say, let us unify ourselves as Canadians. Let us be a parliament with a purpose. Let us declare our wishes as Canadians, and let us accept the flag as

Canadian Flag
Canadians. Let us unify our country. Let us march forward under a flag of which we can be proud. Let us get back within the realm of sanity. Let us have leadership and not chaos. Let us support the subamendment in order to preserve the unity of our country and march forward under a flag of which the vast majority of Canadians can say, "I chose that flag."


Prosper Boulanger: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he know of a country which was given a flag through a plebiscite or referendum, whatever you call it?


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: This question was answered a few minutes ago. If the hon. member will tell me of a country that has changed its flag in the manner in which we are attempting to do here, then I will answer the question.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time simply to say that if my friends on the right will ever permit me to do so I will vote for their amendment, and for a plebiscite on the flag. I have been in favour of a plebiscite from the start of this flag debate since I believe it is a very fair and reasonable way of settling the issue. I have been waiting now for three weeks in order to vote for the Conservative amendment. I will vote for it just as soon as they allow me to do so.
In a few more days I have to leave to go to my constituency on important constituency business. I am afraid that the vote will be taken before I can return. I should like to get it on the record, if I may, that if the Conservatives would allow me to vote for their amendment, I would do so now. If I had a vote I would vote in favour of the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question; let us vote.


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, on an emotional subject such as the one we have been discussing it is the duty of a member of parliament to register his position. A number of things have been mentioned on the flag question and I make no apologies for repetition.
The subject is one which should not have been introduced for debate in this house but which should have been settled by a plebiscite. The question of whether or not we should vote on a Liberal party flag is one that should not be brought before the house. In western Canada the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) replied, "Oh, we had an election and the people voted for us. We had a flag

plank in our platform." The only time the Liberal candidate who ran against me mentioned the flag was when he hesitantly agreed with the Legion in his home town that the red ensign was the best flag for Canada. That was the last we heard of the flag issue from him.
We should be attending to some other business in this house, matters that should be brought in and discussed fully, not things that will be hauled away from the house before being decided. There are health and welfare matters that should be discussed. There are agricultural matters that should be discussed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: My hon. friends yell order but I would refer them to these words of the subamendment, "and that in such a plebiscite among the questions to be placed before the people should be the following", and I would point out that certain questions are listed and there are others that might be listed. One of the other things we could be talking about is agriculture, even though a recent issue of a western farm paper said there had not been much time spent on agriculture, mainly because the previous minister of agriculture had done so much that there was little left to do right away. These are some of the things we should be discussing rather than spending our time dividing the country on a very emotional issue.
If we are to have a flag agreeable to a majority of the people, how do we achieve it? You certainly do not achieve it the way the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has attempted to do so. You do not antagonize the people of Canada, and then force a flag on them. You do not divide the country and then force a flag on it. This is not the way to get a worth-while flag for the country. You do not take a flag and thrust it down the throats of the Canadian people.
When the Prime Minister first brought forward his flag proposal he had far more support for the maple leaves than he has now. The Liberals are losing support because of their arrogance and contempt for the people of Canada. How much better it would be to have a referendum and settle this question properly. Among the questions which the subamendment proposes is that of the red ensign and the modifications that might be made to it. Personally I am in favour of the red ensign with modifications, to show the heritage of our history. I am and will be

utterly and forever opposed to the three maple leaf foliage which, as the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) pointed out, is no more than a carton trademark, something I personally would hesitate to fly at any time.
What are we going to have if we adopt this flag? We are going to have everybody in Canada flying their own flag. People will say, "Mr. Pearson can have his flag, and so can I." That is their attitude towards this subject, which has been bungled, and bungled badly by the government. I believe I speak for a majority of my constituents when I say we should have the red ensign with modifications to show our dual heritage. Such a flag would show something of the freedoms we have in Canada, freedoms we would like to preserve.
One of these freedoms is freedom of the press, which to all intents and purposes we have lost at the moment. We have newspapers like the Edmonton Journal coming out with large editorials dealing with the red ensign and the plebiscite-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I have the impression that the hon. member is straying away from the subject before the house.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: He is right on the dot.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I feel he is straying away from the subject matter now before the house and, as he knows, there was a decision of the house rendered yesterday. I feel it is the duty of all hon. members to try to abide by the decision of the house, which was to the effect that hon. members taking part in the debate at this stage-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -including the Minister of Trade and Commerce, should limit themselves to the specific point at issue.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to establish some of the reasons why I think the second question in the subamendment is the one I favour, and why I think it is an ideal solution as a plebiscite question. I see nothing out of the way in stating why I think the red ensign with modifications is a good idea to have as a question in a plebiscite.
I was mentioning that we were losing some of the freedoms we fought for over the years, and one of those freedoms which we have pretty nearly lost is freedom of the press. If Your Honour will allow me I would like
Canadian Flag
to point out two or three instances in this regard. The most blatant one is the recent dismissal from Maclean's of six editors because they would not follow the Liberal line, and there was not one pressman with enough gumption to stand up and defend his fellow journalists who were thrown out of their profession because they would not follow a flag with three maple leaves. Is this the kind of freedom we are going to have under these three maple leaves, which I would like to label as the pettiness, pomposity and petulance of the Prime Minister? The three maple leaves are going to take away our freedom. This is not the kind of flag I want to live under, nor the kind of flag my constituents want to live under.
I would like to mention that the managed press in Canada is kowtowing to the Liberal line. The Edmonton Journal had a long editorial in favour of the red ensign and a plebiscite, but it got the word shortly thereafter and it has been particularly quiet ever since. It published the results of its own referendum and in northern Alberta, an area which is basically Anglo-Saxon but which has a mixture of all nationalities and has a substantial number of our French Canadian friends, who are some of our best citizens, this area was 65 per cent in favour of the red ensign.
We need the union jack on our flag to preserve this very vital freedom, this freedom of the press which we are losing, if we have not already lost it to big business which controls the publishing industry. These people are trying to mould public opinion in favour of the foliage flag, in favour of pettiness, pomposity and petulance.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member permit a question? I was wondering if he was not aware that three maple leaves was the emblem of Canada selected under a Conservative administration?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: The three
maple leaves were designed by a former king of England and I am surprised my Liberal friends would pick them up as a slogan for Canada. We in western Canada, if we do see maple leaves, certainly do not see three of them on one stem. I do not think it is a botanical possibility in any case. As I say, personally I have no use whatever for this foliage flag and I will never fly it in any place over which I have jurisdiction, wherever I may be. As I have said, this foliage flag means nothing. I can only say it is a product of petulance, pettiness and pomposity on the part of the Prime Min-

Canadian Flag
ister. It probably reflects more than anything else the attitude of this government to date. We have seen budgets come and go. We have seen 60 days of decision come and go. We are now in the midst of a flag debate, which will continue because it is of vital importance to the majority of the people of Canada.
This is not something which hon. members opposite can decide, because they believe they are almighty. They are not. They will have to answer to the people eventually. If they persist in trying to force this foliage flag through, and if they succeed, it will be known as a Liberal party flag. It will be a political flag and nothing more.


Miss Jewett:: Passed by parliament.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Passed by parliament by trained seals following a leader. Have a free vote if you want to talk that way. Have a free vote, and I would like to see how some of the hon. members over there would vote, including the hon. lady.


An hon. Member:: What would happen on your side?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Don't worry
about our side. This three leaf flag will become a political flag-a flag which will go out on every piece of Liberal propaganda in the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Of course it will, particularly in certain areas, because the Liberals believe in a policy of divide and conquer. This is a dictum of the Liberal party and it dates from the days of Mackenzie King: You cannot win the country politically if there is unity; you must have the west fighting the east and then you pick up the pieces and become the big cheese. This was Mackenzie King's dictum, way back; the only way to win political power was to divide and conquer, and we in the west suffered from that policy for many years.
I say to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) that if he and some of his hon. friends from Quebec were less interested in the question of provincial autonomy and more interested in Canada as a whole we would have more success in building up a greater country. He might also be helping the people of his province a great deal more than he has done in the past if he would think in broader terms and contemplate a wider horizon. We in western Canada have always
[Mr. Homer (Jasper-Edson) .1
been accused of being radicals, even on occasion of being separatists. But we believe in Canada and we are willing to make sacrifices in order to remain part of Canada. I want to see Canada grow. I do not think it can grow under this three maple leaf device. We believe it is much better to have the red ensign which means something to our people, and I am sure even those members in the back benches of the Liberal party must have been thrilled when the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), of neither Anglo-Saxon nor French origin, got up and made the speech he did this afternoon. It was an example of what Canada can and should be under a flag such as the red ensign, perhaps with modifications to show our dual heritage. In this way we could go ahead in unity. The only manner in which this could possibly be done now is by means of a plebiscite.
We did not force this flag issue on the House of Commons. It was brought on by the Prime Minister saying, in his petulance, that he must fulfil at some time at least one of the promises made during the election. So he pushed this issue before the house in an effort to force this flag down our throats, trying to force upon us an artistic monstrosity which does not mean anything and which the majority of Canadians do not want. It is not good enough for the hon. member to say "just vote on it".


An hon. Member:: On the plebiscite.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: There are others on this side who want to speak. I was talking earlier about freedom of speech. This is something which may be unheard of in Liberal ranks. But we believe we should learn from history and we would like to have the red ensign continue as our flag. We believe in the freedom of speech and in the freedom of the press and we would like these things to continue. We have had an example in this very debate of what might happen if we did not enjoy freedom of speech. We would have a foliage flag forced down our throats without regard to the opinions of the people of Canada, which would be a most divisive thing and would spoil the heritage on which this nation is built. We need this plebiscite. I think all hon. members, particularly those in the back row over there, should sit down and re-examine their positions; indulge in a little self-hypnosis and come out in favour of the subamendment.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Hugh Macarthur Horner: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I had said that if we go ahead and pass this foliage flag of three maple leaves, which I designated as representing the pettiness, the pomposity and the petulance of the Prime Minister, we would cause nothing but disunity in Canada. I would like to spend just a few minutes saying how a plebiscite of the nature outlined in the subamendment could foster unity in Canada and make it a better, greater and more prosperous nation. One of the most serious things that is besetting confederation at the moment is this unsettling idea of the disunity that has been fostered, particularly in the province of Quebec but also in my own province in western Canada. While not so much has been heard about it, there is in each of the areas of Canada, I am sure, that local pride, that local necessity to promote their own area which fosters regionalism and makes separatism feasible to the people in these areas. This is, after all, Canada's greatest problem at the moment.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister has done a disservice to Canada by bringing forth the flag issue at this particular time. There is no doubt about it, nobody asked for a new flag particularly. Why should we change our flag; this is the question. It is not a question of giving us a flag all of a sudden; we have had a flag for 100 years. Why should we have a new one right now, when we have all sorts of problems that are related to confederation, that are related to our being a vast country different in geographical areas, different in areas of ethnic origin, different in what people are doing, and different in economic potential. In the face of these problems, why should we suddenly try to give them one little symbol that is supposedly going to make them all happy? But, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to do that. Ordinary common sense tells us that this is going to be a divisive issue; that this is going to foster disunity, not unity. The only way we are going to get that on to the right track, the only way we can try to bring Canada to that kind of unity we would all like to see, whereby all peoples of all ethnic origins can live, work, prosper and develop together, is by having a majority vote on this very emotional question.
It is not good enough for a few cabinet ministers, like the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) this afternoon, to rise
Canadian Flag
and rant and rave about filibuster, and so on. This issue is far more important than that. I would have thought the Minister of Trade and Commerce would have had more knowledge of the people he is governing than he displayed this afternoon. We must have, if we are going to achieve unity, that area of co-operation that is necessary to do this. Whether you want to call it co-operative federalism, or not, does not matter; but we have to be one country.
I am sure the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) appreciates that you cannot go around stealing industries from one area and giving them incentives to settle in another, providing jobs in one area at the expense of another. This is the sort of thing that will also foster disunity, and it is already taking place to a certain degree. We need something that is going to bring us unity. We are not going to get it under this foliage flag. We are going to get it only if we have a plebiscite.
I think the idea of having four questions is a good one, because this will give people in all parts of Canada a chance to express their opinions and they want to express their opinions. The Liberal party did not fight the last election in most areas of Canada, on the question of the flag at all. As I said earlier my Liberal opponent mentioned it only once. He said he was in favour of the red ensign and then backed off this question for the rest of the campaign. This was pretty general in the rest of Canada. So to say now they have a mandate to bring in a new flag is just nonsense, because they do not have a mandate to bring in this kind of flag at all.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we need a plebiscite as a unifying force in this country, as a democratic way of settling a difference. Then the majority decision will be accepted by the people of this country. Along this line we need, in order to promote unity in Canada, the communications media orientated to Canada as a whole. We have had the C.B.C. and other communications media, notably the press, orientated mostly to promoting themselves and not at all to promoting Canada. They have been destructive instead of constructive. They have not promoted the idea that we should have one Canada and a single symbol for one Canada. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, a single symbol that will make Canada united is one that has an historic background; one that will give our dual heritage full play; one that is acceptable to the people who came here from other nations partly because the union jack was on the flag we are flying and its freedom was all they

Canadian Flag
wanted. This is the only reason many people came to Canada in the first place; I have been told this many times. People of our various ethnic groups want their chance to say now what kind of flag we are going to have.
There are the four questions that could be posed to them if a plebiscite were held. There is the question: Are you in favour of the red ensign? Are you in favour of the red ensign modified-as I am-to show our dual heritage? Are you in favour of the three maple leaves? If we can trust the newspaper polls-and I never trust anything that is printed in the newspapers any more, after having come to parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: -the majority of people in Canada in nine provinces do not want this foliage flag. That is, if you can trust anything that is printed in the newspapers, as I say. I do not; I am just putting that forward.
The other question is with regard to the single maple leaf. The only disadvantage I see to a single maple leaf is that it does not denote anything. I think the three maple leaves denote, as I have said, several characteristics of this government and of the Prime Minister, but the single maple leaf would not denote anything. It is not a national botanical specimen, and we in western Canada would rather have the beaver or even the buffalo. We think these are national emblems. Why do we not have a rose?


Mr. Guay:: Or Diefenbaker.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: We could do all right with that, too. Still the question remains that all of us have to think on a proper basis along more than strictly provincial lines. This is the serious challenge thrown out to all members of parliament. We must quit being regional in the sense that we must have a particular flower or leaf from our area to be used as a symbol. The easiest and most historic thing which will unify Canada is for us to have a red ensign modified to show our dual heritage.
I say let the people of Canada decide. Let the people vote on a plebiscite composed of these four questions. Surely the only other answer is for the government to allow a free vote amongst its backbenchers without any brainwashing. That is the only alternative to a plebiscite. If the Prime Minister will lose some of his pomposity and petulance, then we can get on with the business of Canada and settle the question of a symbol very

easily. Once we are prosperous and working together this can be done. To continue in this manner is to continue to divide the country, and confederation will be meaningless in the near future if the government persists in its pattern to date.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents I represent in the historic county of Pictou I wish to take part in this debate, which itself is an historic one. I subscribe to the terms of the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More), and I shall be referring to it in my remarks more fully.
This afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) brought forward in his speech a few matters which he said pertained to the subamendment; and in view of the fact that he was permitted to carry on and bring forward various matters I think at this time I should be able to comment briefly on the points he raised. The minister said that the official opposition were carrying out a filibuster in this debate. As pointed out by my hon. friend the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) on another occasion, a filibuster means to impede the progress of legislation. In this case it means to impede the progress of the House of Commons and of parliament itself. That is not the interpretation which I place upon my speaking in this debate, Mr. Speaker, nor is it the interpretation of the official opposition or of many people in this country.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is on record as pointing out that the members of this house should speak in this debate and have the right to have their say. If hon. members opposite do not wish to do this, that is their business. But if we on this side do wish to do this, then that is democracy at its highest.
Several months ago one of the members sitting on the other side-I will not point him out-said to me when sitting down at the table one day: "What is the point of going on with the debate on the flag? You are going to lose the vote anyway. You might as well give up the ghost." Yesterday in this house, someone on the other side-it is recorded in Hansard as "An hon. member"- said "We will rub you off". This was said after the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) said names would be rubbed off monuments. If we, the official opposition, and the people of this country were to give up the ghost and cease to fight, then certainly nothing would be accomplished in the way it was accomplished during the period since confed-

eration in making this country of ours the great country it is. If the allies in the last war had given up when the Germans told them that they would defeat them, so what was the point of keeping on, where would we be today? They even sent a spy over to England to talk the U.K. and our allies into surrendering. I believe it is worth fighting a battle when principles are at stake in which you believe; and we certainly have principles on our side in this case.
The minister also said that the control of the business of the House of Commons is in the hands of the leaders who were meeting today. I took some notes of what he said, but as they are not verbatim I can be corrected. I might point out it was a different matter in 1962, when the government of that day was charged by the opposition with being in charge of the business of the house, rather than the various leaders of the parties. It is a different matter, now that hon. members opposite are on the government side. The official opposition were also accused of irresponsible manoeuvring. It seems to me that in this regard the irresponsibility should be placed at the doorstep of the Prime Minister and of the government for bringing forward this flag resolution and pressing it upon the people of Canada. Let us put irresponsibility where it belongs and look at this question in an objective manner.
Confederation in the spirit of Macdonald and Cartier was also mentioned. I think the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) got up and asked, where was the spirit of Macdonald and Cartier. Of course, the Minister of Trade and Commerce wondered about that, but said it is not present in this modern age. I suggest that in this debate the members of the government have no free vote. The minister said that parliament should decide the issue of the flag. I suggest that parliament is the proper body to look into this question and decide the issue if hon. members on both sides of the house are given a free vote and are able to vote as their conscience dictates. In the days of Macdonald and Cartier, when men from all over the country were brought together to form and to weld the nation which we have today, there was certainly no doubt as to a free vote. Those Fathers of Confederation became members of this house and of this parliament of Canada and they were free to do so. They were not pitched into it by any party. They showed their own independence, and we need more of that in this parliament today.
The minister said, among other things, let us not appease anybody. I am not going to go 20220-442
Canadian Flag
beyond the terms of the subamendment, but in speaking of appeasement let us not forget that there is another resolution to follow, that concerned with the adoption of the union jack. As has been said on a previous occasion, there are two flags-one for show by the government and one for Joe, the premier of Newfoundland.
The minister also said he has been disappointed by the speeches of opposition members. He said there was sincere evidence of spirit but none of tolerance and conciliation.


Mr. Byrne:: And he will be disappointed with yours, too.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The hon. member's greatest contribution to the house is to sit there and mumble. Sometimes he appears on Hansard and sometimes he does not; but in either case he makes no real contribution. I hope that he will speak later on. I always like to hear him speak and to read his speeches, because they can be used on other occasions.
With regard to the question of a free vote I thought I might look into the original stand taken by the Prime Minister and dwell on that for a few moments. First there was to be a free vote given to the members of the House of Commons. Other members have made this suggestion and I think it is worth repeating at this time.
There was a suggestion that any vote on the flag issue would be considered as a confidence vote and any defeat in respect of the Prime Minister's motion would be considered to be a defeat of the government. Following that suggestion, of course, the Prime Minister challenged the opposition to an election. This then became a political football.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) this afternoon read part of an editorial which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. This evening I should like to read from the May 21, 1964 edition of that newspaper. I do not intend to read this item completely, Mr. Speaker, but I feel portions of it should be repeated during this debate. The portion I wish to quote commences as follows:
The so-called "free" vote on the flag issue is so much double talk, a mere sham.
The article then continues:
It matters little that Mr. Pearson says that any member of the Liberal party voting against the design submitted by the government would not be read out of the party. To our mind, such assurance is meaningless, and is not characteristic of Mr. Pearson.

Canadian Flag
Another portion of the article states:
We do claim, however, that the Liberal members would not line up unanimously behind the government's choice of flag-as it appears they are going to do-if party loyalty and the government's future did not hang in the balance. It is impossible to believe, for example, that all the Liberal members from the Atlantic provinces-where sentiment in favour of the red ensign seems overwhelming- would vote contrary to the wishes of their constituents.
The article then indicates that the flag issue is different from other issues brought forward by the government. This issue has been brought forward as a political football. It involves a flag proposed by the Prime Minister, with the help and assistance of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), and will not give Canadians the opportunity of expressing their views. The Minister of Trade and Commerce suggested that parliament should decide this issue. I would be in support of that statement if a free vote was held.
In reference to item 3 of the subamendment relating to the three maple leaf design, as other hon. members have pointed out, this does not represent a distinctive Canadian flag. Maple trees do grow in various parts of the United States and other countries and are certainly not distinctive to Canada. Mr. Speaker, I received an interesting letter in this regard, as did the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales), who quoted a portion of it, which appears in Hansard of July 3, 1964 at page 5019. I should like to repeat that quotation as follows:
If Canada should have a new flag ... it should at least have a definite Canadian identification and not maple leaves.
Mrs. Young of Avondale Station, one of my constituents sent me several samples of our maple leaves. Following your ruling last night, Mr. Speaker, in respect of the various flags produced by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) I decided not to bring the samples with me. I should like to read a portion of Mrs. Young's letter as follows:
Enclosed please find a few samples of our maple trees. So that you may have the evidence to show the Prime Minister that the red maple of Canada is not the one he plans to paint red on his flag. The Canadian red maple is rubrum, and the one shown on the flag designs we've seen, look more like the "Norway maple" which is an introduced tree, or the "sugar maple" which is Canadian and American but not red in colour. It turns yellow in autumn.
We think the Prime Minister and others should be better acquainted with our beautiful red maple whose leaves are distinctive but not like the Norway maple.

The suggestion is that the proposed design with the three maple leaves is not representative of a maple leaf distinctive to Canada. Undoubtedly the hon. member for Leeds dealt fully with this matter, and he will correct me if I am wrong when I say that the evidence indicates that the proposed maple leaf on the flag design is not distinctive to Canada.
I should like to read from an article written by Mr. Roland Sherwood, which appeared in the Pictou Advocate of June 4, 1964 with reference to the three maple leaves. I do not intend to read the entire article but only the pertinent portion. He says:
This new flag design, with the maple leaves, throws the whole set-up out of kilter.
He is referring to the red ensign and "O Canada". He then goes on to say:
The design looks to me as something good for some group or organization, but not as a national symbol. However, to keep everything in focus, I have a suggestion for Mr. Pearson. If he is determined, and I respect his determination, to have the three maple leaves on a white background, with the two blue bars on the ends, then I suggest that he scrap "O Canada" in favour of "The Maple Leaf Forever" as the national anthem. At least this would be consistent. And one other thing. Since the proposed new flag has a large white field, it will be difficult to keep clean, once it hits the flag pole and starts to "brave the battle and the breeze". So, if the maple leaf design becomes the national flag, I suggested that Mr. Pearson make arrangements to have a package of "Breeze" given with every flag purchased. And let this be our rallying cry:
The maple leaf our emblem dear Upon our flag we sees.
With all our might We'll keep it white By using new blue Breeze.
I have made reference to that article, Mr. Speaker, to indicate some of the feeling toward the suggestion that this design is distinctively Canadian. Many of us have witnessed small flags on car radio aerials which are copies of the red ensign and the maple leaf design, and we have seen what a few weeks have done to them.
In reference to item 1 of the subamendment, Mr. Speaker, which deals with the Canadian red ensign, I received a very interesting letter from a retired army colonel. In this letter he refers to a visit to a tobacco shop operated by a Mr. John Dallas of New Glasgow. I might say that John Dallas is a well know merchant of Grecian origin who has lived in this town for many years. The letter in part states:
I was in his shop on Wednesday morning for my paper. He had a paper in his hand at the time. I

hardly got into the shop when he demanded to know, pointing to the red headlines on the flag issue, what do you think of that? Then he went on to say, there were two cuts on the front page, pointing to the Prime Minister's flag, "that is not my flag, this one is," meaning the red ensign, "it is the one I want, I will never put that so and so thing up," again pointing to the maple leaf design.
Mr. Speaker, that represents the feeling of only one citizen in this area who came to Canada many years ago and who operates a small shop in this community. That gentleman has been treated well by the town, country, province and indeed Canada. He expressed his feeling about this proposed design, and the red ensign. I fully endorse his views.
Shortly after receiving that letter I read an edition of the New Glasgow Evening News dated July 22, 1964 which contained an article in reference to this same Mr. John Dallas. That article reads as follows:
The philosophy of "don't throw away-save everything," has paid off for 81-year-old tobacco shop owner John Dallas.
Apparently this gentleman saved old cigarette packages which displayed various flags in existence as far back as 1914-15. The article then continues as follows:
Dead in the centre of the display is the flag of Canada, as yet-the red ensign.
As Mr. Dallas said, "That is the flag I want. I will never put that so and so thing up. The red ensign is my flag." And I, too, join with him and say the red ensign is my flag.
Many speeches have been made about letters received by members. I must state that I have received letters from members of Legion branches, branches of the I.O.D.E., the Silver Cross women and, indeed, from some younger people of my constituency, who endorse the red ensign.
As I pointed out, I hope that this problem will be solved soon. I hope the Prime Minister will withdraw the resolution so that the people of Canada may follow the procedure laid down by the subamendment and make their wishes known. As I told some of my colleagues, last night I was awakened at 1.30 by a telephone call from one of my constituents who was most irate about this matter. I assured him we were going into the matter fully. He was very disturbed. I hung up the phone, and at a quarter to two I received another call from him so I hope in heaven's name the Prime Minister does withdraw this resolution so that we can all have a little peace and quiet in this country.
20220-442i
Canadian Flag
I slept on this matter, and this speech is the result.
In so far as the matter of the referendum is concerned, it can be pointed out-


Guy Favreau: What time did your caller call back that same night?


Howard Russell MacEwan: About 1.45. He still could not get to sleep. He was calling from Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and he was very put out, as the Minister of Justice can well understand, not with Charlottetown but with the matter of the flag.
In so far as the matter of the referendum is concerned, perhaps I can just quote briefly from a newspaper article. The referendum, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) last night and the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) this afternoon, encompasses four different points. They are these: 1. Are you in favour of the red ensign? 2. Are you in favour of the red ensign with changes thereon to show the main heritage of the founding races? 3. Are you in favour of the three maple leaf design? 4. Are you in favour of the one maple leaf design? I think this subamendment should carry.
In so far as the referendum is concerned, as I have said perhaps I could quote briefly from the Globe and Mail for August 13, 1964.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I hear a little noise down in the corner there. The monkeys are at it again. I wish somebody would put them back in their cages and give them some peanuts to keep them quiet.
This article is by Bruce West, and reads in part as follows:
I am sure that many of us who now oppose the scrapping of our present proud flag would be willing to shut up and bow to the will of the majority if a referendum indicated that a new flag were desired by this country.
It might be painful, but not nearly so painful as the prospect of having this flag foisted upon us by a government which really gives its members no other choice but that of voting for the adoption of a new standard.
As I've often said here before-


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


Howard Russell MacEwan: This is very enjoyable; just listen.
-it seems to me that there is hardly any other question which deserves a free vote of the people more than that of what kind of flag they must live under.
The pertinent part follows:
Surely the democracy of which we have always been so proud hasn't fallen so low that such a

Canadian Flag
choice can't be made in a free and honourable manner. Once the referendum has been set up it would then be expected of all politicians that they would refrain from making any mention of the flag issue until after the people had expressed their will.
Any politician who attempted to inject the question into any of his harangues would then be clearly labelled for what he was-a tinhorn opportunist who was attempting to make capital out of a matter which should be considered above politics.
In this way we could probably preserve far more unity than under the present conditions, in which the flag issue can and does become a political football.
Then, there is this final paragraph:
Let the country speak on this matter. The answer will come from the soul, where it should come from when dealing with the question surrounded by such a great deal of honest sentiment. Once the country has spoken in this healthy manner, dissension on this subject will cease, no matter which way the vote may go.
As was pointed out in the issue of Labor of July 4, 1964, in a letter to the editor:
Prime Minister Lester Pearson has stirred up a hornets nest by wanting to destroy our lovely red ensign and put one of his own in its place, and what a tame thing his flag is. We already have maple leaves on the ensign. Our whole setup- Britain and the commonwealth-came from God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 33-11: "A nation and a company of nations shall be of thee."
Finally, as I have already stated, I am in favour of the red ensign and the subamendment which gives the people of Canada the opportunity to speak on this matter. The parliament of Canada cannot decide this issue since a free vote has not been accorded to all parliamentarians. I do not believe the present resolution before us will create the necessary unity in Canada. I have enjoyed the company of many of our friends from Quebec on many occasions. I have gone to army camps with them. I have been associated with many of them here in our House of Commons and I have enjoyed the House of Commons with them. I have enjoyed social occasions with them when we sang that old French Canadian song-not Alouette, that came later-The Regiment. I enjoyed that very much. I think there must be ways of further unifying this country other than the presentation of this resolution by the Prime Minister. Let him take cognizance of this. Let the government take cognizance of it. Let us go ahead so that in 1967 when we celebrate our 100th birthday we can show the necessary unity and we can fly a flag of which all Canadians can be justly proud.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising is to-


Prosper Boulanger: Shorten the debate.


Guy Marcoux: Perhaps, if that is possible, but especially to say something new in a debate which has been repetitious for some time now. It is also because I have young children and cannot afford to come here and listen for days on end to the speeches which the Conservatives seem likely to continue for the next several days.


Prosper Boulanger: Shame.


Guy Marcoux: They are aware of the fact that the duty of the head of the family who has been elected a member of parliament is to sit in the house during several months and also be with his family when he can take a few days off. It could happen that I might not be in the house when votes are taken on minor questions, but I want my constituents and all the members of the house to know that I am in favour of a distinctive national flag and that I support the motion proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). In addition, if it was necessary to select a flag with a single maple leaf, green instead of red, with darker blue stripes, horizontal rather than vertical, I wish to say that I would still favour any such flag, as long as we finally select a distinctive national flag and bring this debate to a conclusion.
I understand some Conservative members are pleased to see more visitors in the public galleries during the summer than at any other time of the parliamentary year, but I feel rather ashamed that after 97 years of confederation and three years away from the centennial, we are still without a distinctive national flag. It seems to me that we should put an end to our discussions as soon as possible in order to be able to proudly hoist a fully Canadian flag.
As others pointed out earlier, we have nothing against the red ensign, or the French flag or still against the union jack, but we feel it is time, as I said in my speech of June 1, which is reported on page 3808 of Hansard, Canadians were proud enough of themselves, of their past, but also of their present achievements, to adopt their very own emblem.
Far be it from me to accuse those who take part in this debate with being dishonest and simply wanting to force their views on us. The matter is too serious and national unity is too important for me to accuse some members, regardless of their parties, with being dishonest or attempting to divide the country, because I am convinced that both sides are in favour of unity within the country. However, they do not all use the same

698S
means. Some resort to stronger action and others to gentler methods. I feel the motion put forward by the government is better suited to promote Canadian unity than the amendment proposed by the Conservative party.
Now, to come back to the subamendment, I think it is of no importance whatsoever whether the referendum includes one, four, ten or a hundred questions. A referendum is essentially an ultimate method of reaching a decision, one which can only be appropriate when there are no other means of settling a problem, especially when the decision put to the house would run counter to a commitment already made during an election campaign in respect of a well-defined policy.
We know that, in 1942, for instance, a referendum took place to release the government from one of its formal promises. Let us say it was a neat way to impose conscription on a group which wanted no part of it. That referendum was justified because the promise had been made, fallaciously or not, and the government wanted to be released from it.
If we were to pursue the argument of the Conservative party to absurdity, it would mean that no decision could be taken by parliament without a plebiscite being held.
Today, I heard the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) say that the government should be more respectful of democratic opinion. That is exactly why we were elected and it is because we live in a democratic country that we must take in the house a stand which meets the wishes of our constituents. Whether we spend a month, five months or a year discussing this matter, we will still be under the obligation to vote in the house, according to our conscience, it is true, but also according to the wishes of the majority of our constituents.
If the amendment proposed by the Conservatives had to do with the flag's shade of red or blue or the number of leaves, we could say that we have here an amendment on which to make a decision. But what is before us is a request to hold a referendum and the subamendment sets out in detail reasons for it which we could discuss forever. If we want democracy to prevail here in the House of Commons, the matter should be put to a vote. Let hon. members give their opinion in the house, let the electors know what it is, there is no objection to that, but let it be done after the vote, in the fall or later.
Canadian Flag
I am convinced that the house would give unanimous consent to let hon. members who have not had the opportunity to speak before adjournment to do so when the session resumes its normal course in the fall, provided that the vote is taken beforehand.
I say this because we know it is a most controversial matter and as there are 19 million people in the country, we will never reach a true solution. The only solution is to vote on the issue here in the house, because it will have to come to that sooner or later, even if the debate goes on for one or two years. In my opinion, that is what we should do, because after listening to all the arguments, I did not learn anything new about the referendum these past few days. Hon. members are only repeating the same arguments in a different way or quoting different newspaper editorials or taking ever so much time to explain why a certain stand will be taken. Now, filibustering is not serving the cause of the Conservatives or that of any other party. Every parliament is generally against resorting to a filibuster, even if it is a democratic or parliamentary procedure. It is a procedure which reminds me of the drowning person who will grab at anything, a dead leaf, a piece of wood, although knowing it is to no avail. But if the one who comes to his rescue realizes that the drowning person is trying to pull him under, he only has to hit him just hard enough to calm him down and bring him safely ashore.
I think hon. members have taken their stand and they now should vote accordingly.
I am therefore pleading with the Conservatives to stop their filibuster-or whatever they call this-stop prolonging this debate which, in any case, will end up by a vote being taken in a very democratic way.
We might in the same manner, have opposed the 11 per cent sales tax. We made representations and, finally, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) agreed to a compromise. He maintained the tax, but it started at 4 per cent and gradually escalated to 11 per cent. I realize that such a measure was unpopular; I know that other members could have extended the debate indefinitely until the minister should decide to withdraw it. But since the minister refused to withdraw the measure, the Conservatives decided after all to end the debate and to allow the question to be put, and this 11 per cent tax was passed.
I am sure that if the government were asked to use a little darker blue and to have smaller leaves, they would be prepared to

Canadian Flag
agree, because those are minor details, but to ask that a motion which has already been submitted to the house be completely changed, I think this is absolutely impossible, especially since the adoption of a flag was a promise made during the last electoral campaign by the party in office. Even we, of the Social Credit, had submitted a project which is different although it was a reasonable and clearly distinctive flag design.
We also know that the party in power finally accepted, after several about-turns, to bring nuclear arms into the country. Some members objected strenuously, but finally, the measure was passed and now certain formations of the Canadian army are equipped with nuclear armaments. Some were against it, and are still against it and always will be. But the measure was passed although for a time, the opposition played its role which was to prevent the government from getting nuclear arms, until it had exhausted all the reasonable and legitimate procedures.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that after observing the rules of the house when he was talking about a plebiscite, he wandered away a great deal from the subject in the last few minutes.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I was not dealing directly with the plebiscite, but with the consequences of the normal development of events which take place in this house, in a democratic way, because of the attitude of the members who were elected by the people.
I do not want to go farther, Mr. Speaker. I would like to quote several letters from voters who took the trouble to write to me-organizations like the St. Jean Baptiste society, the Jaycee's of Quebec city, the students of Laval University-and ask me to fight tooth and nail in favour of the flag proposed by the government.
I do not want to delay any longer the debates of the house, but I say that several persons and organizations wrote and asked me to support the measure introduced by the government, which is consonant with my personal opinion, so that it is twice as easy.
In conclusion, I will relate a fact-I hope that you will allow me to do so, Mr. Speaker -which happened last year during the international scout jamboree held in Greece; if my memory is good, it was near Athens, but I am not sure. The Canadian scouts were represented by various units coming from different parts of the country. There was namely a unit from the province of Quebec, and the

government of that province had given its scouts the fleur-de-lis flag in order to show that the were from the province of Quebec.
All Canadian scouts were quartered together. Suddenly, an English scout decided to organize a display of flags; a British scout decided to have a display of all the flags. He went around all the units asking them to come for a parade with their own distinctive national flag. When he came to the Canadian unit, he said to the leader of the Quebec company: Come in with your flag: Canada must parade with its flag. The scout replied: But this is not Canada's flag, it is the flag of the province of Quebec. The other asked: Where is the Canadian flag? The scout answered: It is the other over there. The scout leader retorted: But it is not that one; this one is everybody's. We want a distinctive flag.
He then asked the Quebec company to take part in the display with the Quebec flag.
That means that even the British people, who have undoubtedly great respect for the Queen and the traditions, realize, when they see the flag which is presently considered as Canada's flag, that it is not a distinctive flag, and they insist on Canadians having a flag which would distinguish them from the British group.
Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell any longer on that matter. I merely wanted to change the atmosphere a little to show that, in spite of all, we want to co-operate with the government, not because we like the flag as such, but because it is a distinctive flag.
To conclude, I submit that the official opposition should not force the government to avail itself of standing order 33 which is the closure rule, nor of standing order 52, which is the rule concerning the previous question.
With all the consideration I have for the Conservative members who oppose the flag and with all the consideration I have for those who have taken part in the debate on the students loans legislation in a rather lengthy fashion, I think that we must finally come to a decision and that the government would not be blamed, in these circumstances, if they introduce a motion to apply the rule of closure. I am sure that if any member of the house could do it, this motion would be introduced, perhaps right now.
I therefore, suggest to the government that, if the opposition continues its filibuster, its extension of the debate, it should take its responsibilities and move to apply either section 51 of standing orders which deals with

the previous question, or section 33 which deals with closure of debates.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, if he allows me to do so.
I should like to know whether the hon. member can answer this question: Does the fact that a member of the house, even though he is a Conservative, uses a privilege reserved to any member of the House of Commons, that is the privilege to speak, as the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency has just done, mean that he is filibustering? As a matter of fact, I have not yet spoken and I intend to do so before the end of the debates.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer the hon. member's question. Nobody is deprived of the right to speak, but this is simply a normal resolution brought forward in the usual fashion and which is discussed usually in a reasonable number of days and finally put to the vote.
Then, under those circumstances, it happens that a number of members, from each party, are designated to speak-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the subject matter of the discussion between the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) and the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency is somewhat different from the subject now before the house.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the hon. member
allow me to ask him a question about the referendum?


Guy Marcoux: Yes, provided the house allows me to answer it.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the hon. member answer the following question?
On March 17, 1962, when the hon. member still belonged to the Social Credit party, his former leader, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) stated that if his party assumed office, he would hold a referendum on the flag issue within six months following his coming to office.
Was the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency in favour of that commitment? If not, why did he not denounce it at that time?


Guy Marcoux: To my knowledge, the leader of the Social Credit party at the time had not made such a statement.


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: I think at the outset I should read, or place before the house, exactly what it is I propose to talk
Canadian Flag
about tonight. My speech will of course be circumscribed by Your Honour's ruling of yesterday, but I should like to put the amendment on record again. It reads as follows:
That all the words after "that" in line one be deleted and the following substituted:
"As the proposal to change Canada's national flag will affect the unity and destiny of Canada now and for years to come, the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to conduct a plebiscite prior to any further action being taken by the House of Commons, in order that all Canadians may be given their rightful opportunity to declare their choice concerning a national flag."
This was later the subject of a further amendment by my hon. friend from Regina City (Mr. More) who moved:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the words:
"and that in such a plebiscite among the questions to be placed before the people should be the following:
1.	Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign?
2.	Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritages of both founding races?
3.	Are you in favour of the three maple leaves design?
4.	Are you in favour of a one maple leaf design?
This is the ambit of the discussion at the present time.
I wish to say right now, Mr. Speaker, where I stand on this question. First, I am in favour of the subamendment providing for a plebiscite, with the four questions set out to allow people to express exactly what they want to vote for. I am also in favour of the continuance of the Canadian red ensign as Canada's national flag. I want to tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, exactly why I am in favour of our red ensign continuing as Canada's national flag. In the first place, it has been Canada's flag for many years. It is a flag that has been carried and honoured all over the world. It is a distinctive flag, because no other nation in the world has a flag that looks like the red ensign. It has been said that New Zealand's flag, Australia's flag and the flags of several other countries are the same; but they are not-they have blue ensigns. There is not another national flag in the world that looks like the Canadian red ensign.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency that is made up of 70 per cent central Europeans. We have there about 40 different national origins. Thirty thousand of the people whom I represent are of Ukrainian, Polish, Czechoslovakian, Austrian and Rumanian origin, including also the other

Canadian Flag
central European countries. I represent about 6,100 people of Anglo-Saxon origin, about 1,300 people of French origin, nearly 3,000 people of German origin, and the rest are made up of other national origins of 40 different countries.
In the last election campaign I held about 45 election meetings. At every meeting where the flag became an issue or was talked about at all I was asked where I stood on the flag question. I said, "Naturally, being a veteran, belonging to the Royal Canadian Legion, and being a Canadian, I stand for the Canadian red ensign as Canada's flag". Whenever the flag was mentioned and I made that statement I received the applause of everybody at the meeting, of whatever national origin they happened to be. I was told by Americans that this was the only stand to take. Thousands of Ukrainian people have told me they came to this country from their homeland because they did not have freedom there. They came to this country and found freedom under the union jack. They have told me that any flag which did not bear the union jack on it somewhere was no good for them.
I have, as a matter of fact, some 1,300 native Canadian Indians in my constituency. These people look on the union jack-the red ensign now-as the Queen, the person with whom their treaties were made, the great white mother. They want to see a flag with a union jack on it; it has to be the Canadian red ensign or some modification thereof. They prefer it as it is but, like the rest of us who are reasonable people, will certainly make a concession to the rest of the people if others want a maple leaf or a fleur-de-lis or something else on the flag. But the first choice is the Canadian red ensign, as is.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Frank John William Fane: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to mention Quebec at all, but I just want to say right now that I thank the good God that the whole of Quebec is not represented by people like these who are yapping all the time. Whenever a person gets up to speak in English, these people are yapping. They talk about our dividing the country, but when we have something to say and get up to say it, they interfere all the time. It is they who are dividing this country, and not us.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frank John William Fane: Yes; you can yell "Order" till you are black in the face.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw what he said.


Frank John William Fane: It does not matter-


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order. I asked the hon. member to withdraw what he said.


An hon. Member:: He does not understand. [Text]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
Is the hon. gentleman rising on a question of privilege or a point of order? [Translation]


Jean Robert Beaulé: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member made insinuations about us and I ask him to withdraw them.


Frank John William Fane: Mr. Speaker, do I have to retract the truth?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think when the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Fane) began his remarks he was completely within the ambit of the motion before us. I would suggest that he continue in that vein.


Frank John William Fane: Mr. Speaker, I never intended to get off the track at all. As you know, when I am told what the limitations are, I usually stick to them; but when remarks are passed such as those that have been passed, I naturally have to reply. There is another thing about the Canadian red ensign. I have travelled a great deal around the country. I was recently in the United States. I travelled to-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Texas.


Frank John William Fane: No, I didn't go to Texas. I didn't go to Kootenay East either. Perhaps some time the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) will be big enough to stand on his feet and make his own speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: He sits there and "byrnes".


Frank John William Fane: I was a member of a committee of this house that went to Colorado Springs, the headquarters of the air force section of NORAD. It was a very great pleasure to see the Canadian red ensign flying beside old glory on a flagstaff of equal size. It was certainly very wonderful to see our flag there.

The same situation prevailed in Norfolk, Virginia, and in Bermuda. I was recently at a Rotary convention in the city of Toronto. There were around 16,000 people there; they were mostly from the United States. When they saw from the badge I was wearing that I was a Canadian they said, "You are a Canadian. What do you think about this flag issue?"
Fortunately I did not have to go into too much detail, but I told them that there was no issue, that it should not be an issue because it was entirely phony. I said the majority of the people of Canada wanted to continue with the red ensign, but this government had decided that the flag should be changed. These people said to me: "Why in the name of heaven would anybody want to change that beautiful flag which you now have?" That is the way the Americans feel about the Canadian red ensign. Naturally I did not talk to all 16,000 who were there, but I did personally talk to about 200 people from the United States, which I think is a pretty good cross section. Other people were there from all parts of the world and I talked to many of them, and they felt the same way about the matter.
As I said a minute ago, the flag issue seems to be very unnecessary at this time because it was not an election issue. Certainly it appeared in the platform of the Liberal party that within two years of election a Liberal government would submit to parliament a design for a flag which could not be mistaken for the emblem of any other country. If they had done that there might be something to say for it, but they did not. The flag proposed by the government, with the exception of the maple leaves, is almost exactly the same as the flag of the republic of Guatemala. I might also point out, quoting my hon. friend from Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood), that the proposed flag is not too much different from the merchant marine flag of the Soviet union. It has the same colours; it has red in the middle and a white background. Therefore, how can anyone think that the flag presented by the Prime Minister is distinctive, that there is no other flag like it? That proposition is fallacious. Are we to give up the flag which has had its beginnings as the flag of the British merchant navy for a flag not too different in looks from the Soviet merchant navy flag? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what are we coming to? What is the outlook of a Prime Minister who would bring into this house a flag like that, and try to ram it down the throats of par-
Canadian Flag
liament and impose it on the people of Canada? That is exactly what is happening here, Mr. Speaker.
That is why this party is so opposed to this flag. It was not a definite election promise. Only a few people referred to it. In my constituency it was not a general issue in the last election, and the people were not told what kind of flag they would be asked to accept. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that 90 per cent of the people in my constituency will not accept this proposed flag. If we held a plebiscite I would venture to say that 90 per cent of my people would vote entirely for the red ensign.
During my visits back home I meet a great many people, and since the question of the flag has become an issue only three people have said to me that we should accept the flag proposed by the Prime Minister. One of these people was a man who originated in Quebec, one was a man who originated in Poland and the other was a man from Scotland. They told me they would accept this proposed flag, and they are the only three constituents out of 45,000 who have openly supported this flag. The rest of the people have said to me: "Go ahead and get the Canadian red ensign continued as our flag. If you cannot do anything else about it, then if possible get a plebiscite and let us vote, because so far we have not had a chance to say whether we want a different flag from the one we now have. The way we feel is that no flag without the union jack on it is any good for us".
These people are also wondering, as I am, what force impelled the Prime Minister to bring this flag issue to the fore at this time when it was unnecessary to do so. The Prime Minister has lots of other election promises which remain unfulfilled and are more important to the economy of the country than changing our national flag. Was somebody blackmailing him? Why did he pass it on to parliament? That is what the people want to know. They say: "Why fight an election on the flag issue? We will be forced to vote for the candidate who supports the flag we want, whether we like him or not". That is another reason the flag should not be made an election issue. These people are also wondering why the Prime Minister did not first unveil his flag in the House of Commons, in parliament. That is why we are here. If we are to pass judgment on this flag and to decide under which flag we should live, we should have been the first to hear about it and to see it. We were told this

Canadian Flag
afternoon about all the devious ways in which it was unveiled before being presented to the house.
I was at the annual convention of the Royal Canadian Legion in Winnipeg and I heard the Prime Minister put forth his ideas about what should be our national flag. He did not get very much support. It was unfortunate, but the reason he did not get a good hearing was that the initial opening ceremony at conventions of the Royal Canadian Legion is a sacred one. It is a ceremony of dedication to those Canadians who did not come back from the wars. These people feel that the Prime Minister has desecrated their sacred service.
Mr. Speaker, I have told you why I support the red ensign and why I do not support the flag proposed by this government. I have indicated that I would settle for a modification of the red ensign if the adoption of such a modification would unite Canada. I do not believe a flag containing three maple leaves or, for that matter, containing one maple leaf would be adequate and assist in uniting this country.
If we desire to have a flag containing national symbols, why do we not include a symbol representative of those citizens who lived in this country before the white people came? Surely we should have something representative of those Canadians we see fit to call North American Indians.
There have been suggestions made in respect of members serving in the armed forces in Canada under the symbol of a maple leaf. Of the 34 years I was in the service I wore the maple leaf on my uniform for only two years. For the remaining period of time my badge depicted either a beaver or a horse. I think too much consideration has been given to the use of the maple leaf by the armed services.
I suggest the government should give consideration to the amendment proposed by the opposition and hold a plebiscite on this national flag issue. I think by following that course the government will obtain the opinion of the people of Canada and avoid any future argument. Certainly some segments of the population will be in favour of the new flag while others will be in favour of the retention of the Canadian red ensign as it now appears or as modified. I think the only way out of this impasse is a plebiscite which would allow the people of Canada to come to a decision in respect of a Canadian national flag. The people of Canada have not had an opportunity of voting on this flag issue; whether we should

have a national flag, or whether we should change our present flag. I do not suggest that we hold an election-and I do not make that statement because I am afraid to face my electors.
I am quite sure the other members of my party are not afraid of the results of an election, but I am sure that if an election is held the flag issue will be obscured and the end result will not be clear. For that reason I say we must have a plebiscite containing those questions suggested by the subamendment.
Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested by some members on the government side that the member for Regina City (Mr. More) should not have moved the subamendment to the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that had the government offered a plebiscite it would contain the question: Do you prefer the flag proposed by this government or would you rather have one covered with pink polliwogs on a rainbow rampant? There would have been no choice offered. The population would be in the same position the backbenchers on the government side find themselves in at this time. The Prime Minister has said that he would consider an adverse vote on this flag issue as reason for an election and the defeat of his government. That is why his members support his proposal. While I do not shed any tears for them because they are all free, white and 21 and have made this decision with their eyes open, I would hate to be in their shoes at the time of the next election, having backed the proposal for a new flag which displaced the Canadian red ensign.
I have only referred to the Canadian Legion as being in support of the retention of the Canadian red ensign as the national flag, but there are innumerable associations also in favour of that retention. I have also referred to the many letters I have received from my constituents who are in favour of the retention of the red ensign. I have not received one letter from one constituent expressing support for the government proposed national flag.
I have received letters from other parts of Canada. In fact, I have a pile one and a half feet high on my file tables. I am very pleased to have received those letters and have attempted to reply to them all, but this is an onerous task. Some of those letters have been in favour of the new proposed flag.
I wish the Prime Minister was now in his seat because I should like to suggest to him that he should recall the final four lines of

the poem "In Flanders Fields" written by the late Colonel John McCrae. I do not think it is necessary for me to quote it but I will do so for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the words.
To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.
I would ask the Prime Minister how in the name of heaven on November 11, Remembrance day, he is going to be able to say along with the rest of the veterans: "In the morning and at the going down of the sun we will remember them".
Thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I hear some hon. members across the way crying "carried". I hear some hon. members on my left saying "let us vote". I do not believe that these members who say these things deep down in their hearts, believe that those who feel they have a duty to express their thoughts on this subject should not do so.
In rising to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I realize it is most difficult to make an original contribution on a subject that has already absorbed the attention of the house and has resulted in some of the finest contributions to debate since I became a member of this house in 1957. I should like to refer specifically to the speech made today by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), and in the earlier debate to the speeches delivered by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). I rise, Mr. Speaker, because this is a subject which touches the hearts and minds of many Canadians and crosses party lines, or indeed should cross party lines. Last Sunday afternoon I attended an outdoor church service. As I was leaving the grounds where this service was held I saw a very good friend of mine. I say that he is a good friend, but on election day he does his best for the Liberal party in an effort to defeat me. I jokingly said to him, "I am leaving for Ottawa in a couple of hours, is there a message you would like me to take to Mr. Pearson?" He said, "Yes, there is. You tell that man to put his flag in mothballs and put it away." You can see, therefore, that a subject like this does cross party lines. This man, while a good friend, is not a supporter of mine, and I doubt if he ever will be because if one knows the traditions
Canadian Flag
in some areas he realizes that people do not change their political affiliations.
We have before us a subamendment which provides the means whereby Canadians can make a selection from what appears to be the more acceptable flag designs submitted. If I were to vote in such a plebiscite with four choices, I would choose the Canadian red ensign. However, I am democratic enough that I am willing to put my personal choice to the test. The question in my mind, and in the minds of many Canadians, is why the government is unwilling to put its personal choice to the test.


An hon. Member:: It is.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: But not in the form of a plebiscite. Let us not become confused about the meaning of importance and urgency. While I consider no subject of greater importance to the Canadian nation than the selection of a flag I, at the same time, associate no great urgency with its selection. The greatest danger facing this house at the moment is what the end result of thoughtless haste might be. The government would be well advised to remove this subject from debate in this chamber and provide a cooling off period, while carrying on with the more urgent matters facing this house and the country.
A few days ago I had the very great pleasure of taking part in the annual Gaelic mod at St. Ann's in my constituency at which time, as usual, the Scots met together to demonstrate to the world that they have kept faith with their historic past. Now, is this not the crux of this debate? Is not the objective of the official opposition to try to convince the government that the flag approved by the members of this house should be one which keeps faith with our historic past?
Canada is a nation composed of many cultures, many traditions, all of which have contributed to the strength, the diversity and the unity that make our country unique. In order to be vibrant, to be forward looking, to be progressive, a country must foster a national pride and love of country; must cherish its traditions and base its progress on what has proven of value in the past. So it is with Canada. The many races that are today an inherent part of Canada have enriched our culture and developed our economy. We have only to look around us here to see the proof of that statement.
I am reminded of the annual Dominion day celebrations here in Ottawa when the lawn in front of the parliament buildings echoes to
6S92

Canadian Flag
the songs and dances of many nationalities, originally brought from distant lands but which now form an integral part of the colourful mosaic that is the Canadian way of life. These are the traditional things which are prized by groups individually and by nations collectively. These are the inherent strains of our Canadians nation which we must strive to preserve and protect. These are the elements, Mr. Speaker, which make Canada distinctive, for without these distinctive elements Canada would soon lose something of its appeal, its very reason for being. Each and every one of us has a responsibility to preserve what has proven of value in the past, for we of this generation are the channel through which our traditions and cultures will be passed to the rising generation. Canadians of Scottish origin, particularly Cape Breton Scots, have diligently discharged their responsibilities in this regard.
As a Scot representing the constituency of Cape Breton North and Victoria, I would be remiss in what I consider my responsibilities if I did not participate in the debate on a subject of this importance, and speak out against any government, no matter of what political party, which by its actions would eliminate all traces of our historic past in proposing a flag design such as is embodied in the resolution before us. Think for a moment of our history. The earliest settlers of Cape Breton came from France and our island became the jewel in the French crown, the Gibraltar of the north. Indeed, at the height of its fame as a French colony, Cape Breton was known as Isle Royale, the royal island. Years later there was an influx of Scottish settlers, some 30,000 strong, and they utilized their traits of perseverance, integrity and love of country to build upon the foundations of the earlier French settlements. These two strains, the French peasant and the highland crofter, are still strong in Cape Breton. Together, they have made our island a place of unique interest to the many visitors who come to our shores. They have done this by preserving their traditions and promoting their culture as a part of their everyday life.
Then, think for a moment of the history of Canada. The pattern of development in Cape Breton can well be applied to the country as a whole. You will recall that it was the French who first established settlements along the shores of the St. Lawrence and who later made their way by canoe and foot into the unknown interior, opening up the great fur trade upon which the early economy of the country was based. We do well to remember 
their struggles, their trials and their tribulations in this field under almost impossible conditions.
But it awaited the contribution of the Scottish highlanders to transform the fur trade into an industrial development of fire, imagination and boldness which took traders and explorers all the way from our eastern shores to the gulf of Mexico and to the Pacific and Arctic oceans. The Scottish characteristics of daring and tenacity complemented the know how and perseverance of the French voyageur and the result was, in large measure, a great new country.
The early French and Scottish settlers showed their willingness and their adaptability to work together for the common good. Of all the contributions made towards the successful building of this nation, none have been greater than the efforts of these two races. And to their credit, down through the years they have striven to preserve their own cultures and their own traditions. Our annual Gaelic mods to which I referred earlier, are a good example of the success of the Scots in this regard.
In these days, when strife and conflict characterize many actions and reactions in Canada, let us not forget the enrichment to
our society by the many other groups who have come to these shores seeking a new home. Each group has made its contribution and the country is the greater for it; the loss of even one would leave Canada a poorer nation. In my constituency, where we once had only the French and Scots, we today find people representative of every ethnic group in this nation. These people have indicated an appreciation of the contribution made by the French and Scots to the development of our area and, at the same time, the French and Scots have derived great benefit and diversity through the infusion of these groups, that has added lustre to the development of our area and its culture and traditions. They have together, I feel, developed reverence for the Canadian red ensign and what it stands for.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency by some in this country today to discount and discredit the traditions, symbols and cultures which constitute the Canadian mosaic. We must not let ourselves be swayed by this lack of awareness of the things that have made Canada great and which will keep her great. We must not be lulled into allowing our interest to weaken or our fervour to abate in our devotion to the things we hold dear.

I am not, nor have I ever been, a flag waver. I must confess I did not discuss the flag question during the last election campaign or any other campaign, but then neither did my Liberal opponent, nor anyone else on either side, so far as I am aware. I do not feel the voters of my constituency or, indeed, of this nation, expressed their opinion on this flag question during the last campaign. I am in favour of keeping the Canadian red ensign as our national flag because it keeps faith with our historic past. At the .same time, and because this was not discussed during the last election campaign, I am unwilling to allow the government to make a decision for me or for my constituents on a new flag design, until I know their feelings on our present distinctive flag.
Some speakers have mentioned letters they received, and representations which were made to them. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I have received many communications but only one of them was in favour of the proposed new flag. If I were to go by the mail I have received I would of course vote for the Canadian red ensign, but through the process of a plebiscite the people of my constituency would have an opportunity to say what they favour, as would people elsewhere throughout the country; and if the majority were in favour of the proposed new flag then I would be the first to honour forever whatever new flag the majority favoured.
How can any one man, or small committee of individuals, select a flag for 19 million people without first endeavouring to ascertain from them whether they desire any alteration or change in our present flag? The plebiscite now requested by the official opposition and the choices suggested in the subamendment are in my mind the more democratic approach for selecting a flag, and I approve of this approach and will vote for it when that moment arises.
Why should there be any objection to this subamendment or, indeed, to the amendment in relation to a plebiscite? We are not a people who have been held in political or economic bondage within the British commonwealth and, as a result, had any sign or symbol which reminds us of colonial rule. We are a nation which developed through political evolution. We are a living example to the world that it is possible for a colonial possession to become an independent nation. Not for us was there a war to achieve independence; not for us was there violence or the threat of violence. Since we did cut our colonial ties in an orderly manner, there was
Canadian Flag
no oppressor, no feeling of casting off the bonds of an evil oppressor, no feeling that we must wipe away any sign or symbol from our national life which would remind us of a time when we were not free. Quite the contrary, I think it can be freely said that Canadians have a feeling of respect and of good will towards the homelands of their ancestors. I do not believe they wish to tear out of their flag, which has evolved with our growth to nationhood, all references to their past.
We are not a people who are ashamed of our beginnings. I do not think we are a people who want to put some kind of a blackout over our past, as if we did not know our ancestry or that we were ashamed of it. And I do not believe Canadians are the kind of people so haunted by feelings of inferiority that they must proclaim they belong to a free and independent state.
Let us have a plebiscite on this question. Let us get the views of the Canadian people in a free, democratic manner. Let the people of Canada decide whether they feel a new flag is in the interest of national unity; let them decide whether a new flag would give them a sense of pride in their country.
Personally, I believe Canadians now have a sense of pride in their country and have confidence in its future. If they do not, then I do not think all the flags in the world would give them a proper sense of pride and of confidence. Any sense of pride and confidence a flag could possibly give would then be a false and phoney pride and unworthy of our Canadian people. Mr. Speaker, there is but one sure, certain way to obtain the views of Canadians on this question: A plebiscite is the answer.
A flag which is going to fly over us and which will command our loyalty, devotion and sacrifice-yes, our lives, if need be-should be a flag that is born in the hearts of its citizens and reflects the best and truest in all of us, and that speaks for the people, because the people spoke for it. And then it would not be Pearson's personal preference, a political platform promise, or a pennant pushed through parliament by a prejudiced party.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take the opportunity of assuring you, sir, that my remarks this evening on this subject will be on point, constructive, not provocative or repetitive and, I hope, persuasive. The first question I think we should consider on the subamendment is the basic one of whether a plebiscite

Canadian Flag
is justified. This is a question which has been asked a great many times in this house during the present debate. I have assured you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not intend to be repetitive, and since I did discuss this matter at some length in the course of my remarks on the amendment on July 2 last, I do not intend to repeat what I said on that occasion. However, I think a brief summation might be in order.
I think it is clear to all students of government, and of parliamentary government in particular, that while in most circumstances members of parliament are sent here to decide public issues-I would say this is true in at least 99 per cent of all instances-* there are always exceptions in human institutions and there are certain times when a plebiscite or referendum is clearly justified. These are instances where members of parliament do not have at their disposal any special knowledge or information which their constituents lack. This, of course, is the case when moral or emotional issues are involved -issues such as capital punishment, for example, the use or non-use of alcohol, or a decision about a national flag as in the present instance. In none of these cases do members of this house have any greater knowledge of the subject concerned than do their constituents. Consequently, they cannot, in a sense, act as representatives at all, and such matters are fit ones for a plebiscite.
This afternoon, when the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Willoughby)- was speaking, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) asked him if he disagreed with the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, at one time, it was alleged had objected to a referendum being placed before the Canadian people. I am surprised that the Minister of Justice, who is such an eminent member of the Canadian bar, would not have shown more discernment in a matter such as this. The subject he referred to was, I take it, the referendum on conscription held during the second world war. It is clear that in a case such as that, members of parliament have a great deal more information at their disposal, both confidential and otherwise, than do their constituents and for this reason a referendum would be unsatisfactory. In fact I think it proved to be so.
It has been said during this debate that the discussion has gone on too long. The word "filibuster" has been used repeatedly.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In the first place, the word "filibuster" is a word which Canadians have

borrowed from the United States. It is quite unsuitable to apply to our parliamentary government and it has a connotation, from things we read in the United States press and things which actually go on in the United States congress, which has no application to the affairs of this country in the sense in which it is used. In any event, a filibuster is justified in certain circumstances, whether in the United States or in Canada. It is most certainly justified when a minority government attempts to force down the throat of parliament what is apparently-and I will come to this in a moment-a proposal which commands the support of only a minority of Canadians. I can think of no instance when a filibuster would be more justified, if such were the case.
During this long debate-and it will probably continue for a while-the public discussion which has gone on both in this house and outside on this important subject has been I think very valuable. This is something which has in my opinion been overlooked by many who have taken part in the discussion. We have seen a great number of criticisms in public media of information and elsewhere saying: Get the flag issue decided; get it out of the way; sweep it under the rug; it is costing too much money; it is taking the place of things of more value, pension schemes and the like. I do not know what we are coming to in this country when we place a dollars and cents value on every subject which comes up. I am shocked at the extent of criticism of this kind. It proves we have no moral values any longer in this country; everything is calculated in dollars and cents and if you cannot place a dollar value on something it is not worth discussing. Well, in my opinion there are many things of great value to which a dollar label cannot be attached. The symbols of our country and of what we stand for and the principles we choose to follow are among such things. Some of the shallow criticism we find in the press from pseudo-intellectuals who edit our press-and I think of the Ottawa Citizen in this connection, among others-should be reconsidered.
In this regard there are three important and constructive things which have come out of our discussion. First, it has been shown that a large percentage of the people of Canada are very interested in the subject of a Canadian flag regardless of their views as to what its design should be, or should not be. The people are interested in whatever is to symbolize our country, and in what we

stand for. This is good. It is a matter of great importance and value. Everyone will agree, I think, that any flag design must command at least a majority of public support. The discussion has clearly shown, I think, as a result of the work of the press, Gallup polls, and the like, that apparently no present flag which is much in the public eye has more than, at the best, the support of 40 per cent of the people of this country. I refer to an article which appeared recently on the front page of Le Droit, and a column by Mr. Patrick Nicholson. The figures he gave, and I have not heard them refuted, showed that of all the provinces of Canada the province of Quebec offered most support for any design, but even this amounted to not more than 40 per cent, in all Canada. The red ensign had a majority of support-a small one, perhaps-in the other nine provinces, and it came second in Canada with a substantial 30-odd per cent. Apparently neither of these flags have a majority of public support behind them.
The discussion has led to a better understanding of the points of view of members of this house as well as of the points of view of others throughout the country. I know it has helped me a great deal. I do not agree with all that other speakers have said during this debate, but at least I have a better understanding of their views now than I did before the debate started. So I think these are three constructive things which have resulted from this debate.
There is one most unfortunate thing which has resulted from this debate and it is something most of us deplore. As a result of these discussions, both in this house and in the country, a great deal of bitterness has been engendered. The debate has been divisive in many ways and that is a most unfortunate thing. But, after all, it is the government which is responsible for having initiated this debate at this time and it is the government which must take full responsibility for the unfortunate aspect I have mentioned.
Since it appears that only a minority of the people of Canada support any flag design, we in this house should all know the real facts of the matter before parliament makes a decision and the only way in which this can be done is by means of a plebiscite. A referendum is too binding on any government; the holding of a plebiscite is the way to go about it. Then we would have the real facts instead of the educated guesses of public opinion pollsters. If we had a plebiscite, parliament could properly decide its course of
Canadian Flag
action. After such a plebiscite, the Prime Minister himself might be a little less unrelenting and adamant with regard to the position he has taken.
I realize there are difficulties attached to drawing up the proper question to be placed before the electorate in a matter of this kind. But the four questions that appear in the subamendment are perhaps the only possible or logical ones that could be presented to the public in this regard.
The first question in the subamendment concerns the red ensign. This is of course one of the very logical flags to place as a choice before the electorate. This is the flag we have had for quite a number of years. We have had it officially as the flag of Canada since 1946, which is something a large number of the public do not seem to realize at all. Is it a distinctive flag? I think it is, in a great many ways, and a great many other people do also. This flag is very highly regarded and very much wanted in many parts of Canada. I agree that certain regions wish it more than others, and some regions do not wish it at all, apparently. I conducted a little plebiscite of my own in my region, and 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the people, at a minimum, would like to see the red ensign retained. But I also found in my own area that people are not that rigid. They would prefer the red ensign to be retained, but I found that people in our part of the country are flexible and reasonable and I think would meet the viewpoint of other people in this country if that should prove necessary.
Also, Mr. Speaker, people in other parts of the country have very deep feelings-this also applies to my own area-on the subject of the red ensign. It is something under which they have been raised; it is something that symbolizes to them our institutions of parliamentary government, freedom of speech, the courts. You cannot just disregard people's views in this matter, because they are very sincerely held views. Then, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) this afternoon, who came to Canada at a very young age and is of Ukrainian origin and this applies to other members of so-called ethnic groups, which is a term I do not really care for very much, Mr. Speaker -these people are very fond of the red ensign because they made Canada the country of their own choice; they came here because, as was so eloquently pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for On-

Canadian Flag
tario, of the institutions for which the red ensign stands. For this reason, because the red ensign is so strongly viewed as a symbol of Canada in the hearts of so many people -well over 30 per cent-this is clearly one choice that should appear on a plebiscite.
The second question concerns a modified form of the red ensign. This has come about as a result of public discussion of this matter, which I mentioned a few moments ago. This has been a very valuable result of the considerable discussion on this matter. I know this modified version of the red ensign is a matter of personal preference. I would prefer to see something of this nature myself. This would be my first choice, although if a vote did come in this house I feel obliged to support the red ensign because that is the wish of my constituents; and to be logical in my discussion that must be my stand. But as a purely personal choice I would like to see some modified version of the red ensign to bring together as other hon. members have mentioned the symbols of the two principal cultural groups in this country. I believe these things are necessary in order for a flag to be meaningful. A flag that is invented out of thin air so to speak, or as a result of some pedantic thinking, some sort of deep delving into abstruse subjects in producing designs is sometimes not the best method. It may have real meaning in the heraldic sense, but from a practical, common sense point of view it may have very little meaning.
The next question on the subamendment is of course concerned with the maple leaves flag which has been suggested by the Prime Minister and his party. I think most of us are aware that probably the very, very large majority of people in the province of Quebec prefer this flag. Most of us understand, as a result of public discussion of this matter over some period of time, why the people of Quebec prefer to see a flag design which does not incorporate the union jack. I do not agree with them but I can understand their point of view. I sympathize with them without agreeing, because I can understand their point of view. They feel the union jack is a symbol of something rather unpleasant in the past. I also know that the suggestion that there be the fleur-de-lis on a modified red ensign is something that is objected to and I can understand why it is objected to. It is because to some people it represents, to put it in the vernacular, the letting down by the Bourbon kings in 1759. I can understand why neither of these symbols would be particularly agreeable to the people of Quebec,

and I think most of us can understand this as a result of public discussion both here and elsewhere. There is, of course, certain support in other parts of Canada for the flag presented by the Prime Minister. It has not as much support as has the red ensign, but it has substantial support. I think we must all recognize that fact. For this reason, most certainly the flag presented by the Prime Minister and his party should be on any plebiscite to be held.
The fourth item is the question of a single maple leaf flag, which is really a modified version of the Prime Minister's suggestion. That design has appeared before this house, in the press and elsewhere as a result of lengthy public discussion. Since there is apparently some considerable following for this design-how much, we do not know, but I believe most of us have received representations and letters to this effect-this likewise is a design that should appear on the plebiscite.
When the real results of public opinion are known as a result of a plebiscite-and this is the only way in which it can be known- we will be in a much better position to decide upon a flag design. There is no other way of determining public opinion in this regard, apart from educated guessing by pollsters, which does not mean very much; very many people tell pollsters they have no opinion because they feel they are not expressing the opinion that is expected of them. A good example of this occurred recently in connection with the California primaries in the United States election. There were supposed to be so many undecided people, but they clearly were not at all undecided; they supported Senator Goldwater. They thought this was perhaps not the popular thing to say at the time, but that is what they were going to do.
I believe that on an emotional issue such as the flag many people will not say what they want to do; they want to keep their opinions to themselves; they do not want to get into quarrels with their neighbours and so many other people. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I believe the results of a plebiscite might be very surprising. Anything else would be merely guessing, and the only way to ascertain the wishes of the people is by holding a plebiscite. If a plebiscite is held, we will have some real results in this house upon which to base our opinions and our final decision. Then I think perhaps even the

Prime Minister might revise his opinions on what he should do.
If the plebiscite showed that a large majority, or even a substantial majority of the people of Canada supported any design, no matter what it was, I believe any member of this house would be very glad to support that flag design and accept it as the Canadian flag. This would then be an end of the matter. Eut if no majority should appear, not even a simple majority, for any one flag as a result of such a plebiscite, another course of action would have to be taken.


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


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Certainly.


John Ross Matheson: I certainly respect the
fairness of the hon. member's presentation. Does the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) consider that the method used in 1921 by Mr. Meighen to adopt arms, and the method used by Mr. King in 1945 to adopt a flag, namely order in council, was inappropriate or undemocratic; and would that method be appropriate today?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The method used on occasions in the past may well have been appropriate for those conditions, but at the present time I do not feel those conditions would be at all appropriate. Here there is public controversy over the matter whereas on the other occasions there was not. One must adjust to the times.


Prosper Boulanger: No, there is not.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member for Mercier iMr. Boulanger) may feel there is no public controversy, but he must be living in a rather rarefied ivory tower, to say the least. If it was found from such a plebiscite that there was not even a simple majority for any flag-and I really cannot understand why government members seem so sure about this, yet are alarmed at the thought of a plebiscite-then I would suggest that a parliamentary committee, consisting, say, of ten members drawn from all parties on an appropriate basis, be set up to try and decide on a flag design. Although I realize there are some who would not agree, I feel that a time limit should be set of three to four months. Then that parliamentary committee, knowing the real feelings of the people as a result of the plebiscite, could get together with such a time limit and work out some compromise design which might be mutually unsatisfactory to every-
Canadian Flag
one, as it is said, but might be reasonably satisfactory to most people in Canada.


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


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Certainly.


Alexander Bell Patterson: The hon. member has referred to the possibility of there not being a majority.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not agree with my hon. friend from Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson). I do not normally disagree with him but on this occasion I do. I feel that a transferable vote in a matter such as the flag would result in almost no opinion at all or a hodge-podge of opinions. I feel that this would not produce a satisfactory result.
I say that for this reason, and this is my next point. If you have a parliamentary committee to try and arrive at a compromise design, I am sure that this could be done. There have been a number of discussions amongst hon. members, and I am sure a number of hon. members present are aware of them. Several flag designs have been privately and informally discussed. These flag designs might well meet the points of view of quite a number of members on both sides of this house, and might be even more appropriate than some of the designs suggested so far. I will not go into the details of these designs, but many hon. members know to what I am referring. If a parliamentary committee were set up, and if none of the present flag designs could command a majority of public support, the flag designs which are being discussed could present a compromise point of view, would receive a chance for consideration and might meet some mutual point of view.
If such a committee were set up, I suggest of ten members, on which every party had appropriate representation, it would also have to be made clear that the decision of such a committee would not need to be unanimous. Clearly you might run into some maverick or ornery character, to use the vernacular, who would not agree. But if 80 per cent of three quarters of the committee agreed on a design, the design could then be presented to the house for consideration.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Certainly.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am very interested in the suggestions he is making, but what would he suggest the committee do if, for example, as

Canadian Flag
a result of the plebiscite you get 35 per cent of the people for the red ensign, 10 per cent in favour of the red ensign with some modification to indicate the heritages of both founding races, 25 per cent in favour of three maple leaves and 30 per cent in favour of a single maple leaf? It seems to me that we would be in a situation of utter confusion and it would make it very difficult for parliament to act.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I can see very little point in this, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), for whose opinions I have a high degree of respect, did not hear what I said. I said that if none of the designs proved to command even a simple majority of the people of the country, there are a number of other designs which are being promoted here and elsewhere which could be considered. I know a number of people who prefer the red ensign but would accept another design, to which I will not refer at the moment.


Mr. Knowles:: Would the hon. member permit another question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In that case, if the committee came up with some design other than the four proposed designs, would not that design have to be presented to the country in yet another plebiscite? Would not the same principle which calls for a plebiscite now have to be employed again?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Well, that might well be the case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A plebiscite to the death.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This is one of the problems we have here, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We want to live to see the issue resolved.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I imagine that this is why it is difficult to meet points of view. There may be faults in suggestions which are made, although I do not see any faults in this suggestion; but when suggestions are made in this house hon. members have set views and are not prepared to listen to new ideas. I think that is the case with most of the government members.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member permit still another question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes.


Maurice John Moreau: It seems that we are never going to get a vote on the plebiscite question, but I was wondering whether the next suggestion from the opposition might be that we have a plebiscite on whether we should have a plebiscite.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone is charmed with the wit of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) and would probably be half right.


Reid Scott: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No, well, yes, I would be delighted.


Reid Scott: I was wondering whether the problem could not be solved by having a plebiscite in which we list the 2,900 designs we have received, and have a transferable, preferential ballot, and then we could give the statistics people ten years off to tabulate the results.


John Ross Matheson: Might I ask the hon. member a question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Certainly.


John Ross Matheson: My hon. friend is making a very serious speech and I think a helpful one. However, I am sure the hon. member recognizes that the recommendation of the Prime Minister in his resolution is an endeavour to honour what has been an emblem which goes back nearly 100 years. Is it possible that he or any of his associates or colleagues in his part of the house have any ideas how this emblem, which was formally adopted in 1921 under the Meighen government in the reign of King George V, could be preserved in a fashion more acceptable than the resolution presently presented?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is on the coat of arms.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In reply to my hon. friend's question, it could be preserved in the Canadian coat of arms. In reply to the question of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), facetiousness is all good fun and we all enjoy it, and he and the hon. member for York-Scarborough are some sort of twins in this regard, although they are not of the same party. However, in order to finish my remarks I will have to ask hon. members, if they have any more questions, helpful or otherwise-


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to submit them to a plebiscite.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: -to keep them till the end. Regardless of the rather interesting and amus-

ing little interlude we have had through the efforts of the members of the Liberal and New Democratic parties I still believe a parliamentary committee of ten members could arrive at a design acceptable to the house. If the hon. members for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau), Danforth (Mr. Scott) and Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who showed a remarkable sense of humour which I did not think he possessed, would agree, perhaps we could commence with a plebiscite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps it was the hon. member who excited it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am very glad to have excited something in the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if I may say that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Robichaud:: Be careful.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up more than my allotted time as I know there are other members on the government side who wish to speak. I would be very pleased to hear them make some suggestions. I am sure all members would be glad to receive them. I do not believe we have heard from any member of the government party other than the Prime Minister.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Where were you this afternoon?


Mr.   Nesbill@: We did hear something from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), but I do not think he was very helpful.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You were asleep.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am sorry to have created any difficulty, Your Honour, having promised earlier that I would not make a speech of a provocative nature. However, you will realize that under certain circumstances one must change his intentions.
It has been said that a plebiscite would cost approximately $6 million. That may be the case but there is no reason why such a plebiscite could not be held during the next federal election. No one, except members on the government side, seem to think there is any urgency in this flag matter. I am sure that as long as we have a flag by 1967, which is our 100th birthday, that is all that is necessary. If the government does feel there is a reason for having a flag before 1967, in order perhaps to fulfil the Prime Minister's election campaign promise of two years ago, there is no reason why such a plebiscite could not be held this fall in September or October. Regardless of the $6 million cost, if a referendum
Canadian Flag
assisted in the creation of national unity and obviated the necessity for further divisive debate it would be worth it.
Perhaps we could form a parliamentary committee of the type I have suggested, to arrive at some decision in regard to a national flag within a two year period of time allowing the Prime Minister to fulfil his promise, making everyone happy. I think it is important that this divisive debate taking place both in this house and in the country as a whole be concluded. I expect one of my friends on the government side to say that all we have to do to effect this result is discontinue our remarks, and the debate will conclude. I think that is a correct statement but there is one thing wrong with it. We now have a minority government attempting to force a minority view down the throats of the population of Canada.


Mr. Macaluso:: How could we do that?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West, in one of his customary bright interjections has said: "How could we do that?" If my hon. friend from Hamilton West is so sure of his position why does he object to a plebiscite?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Let us vote on it. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Oxford how he thinks a minority government could force anything down the throats of the majority of members?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make remarks in reference to other parties in the house, but it is suggested that the smaller parties will support the minority government.
The design being proposed by the government is not a design proposed by other parties. Since the Prime Minister has made it very clear in this house that unless his design is supported there will be an election, and since most members of this house, as well as the majority of this country's population, do not want an election at this time, I think the government can expect to receive support from other parties.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, come, come.


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


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No, not at the moment.
Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) say, "come, come, come". I do not think my friend wants an election at the present time. I do not think

Canadian Flag
that the majority of the members of this house want an election at this time.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What have you to say
about that which your leader said this afternoon?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not know how the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) would know what was said this afternoon. I did not see him in the house during most of this afternoon.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I was here all afternoon, sir.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not know where.


John Ross Matheson: Would a free vote help?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I suggest that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) put that suggestion to his leader.
Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned it is the view of the majority of the members of this house that we now face a difficult impasse. This impasse was created by the government.


Prosper Boulanger: Oh, oh.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This impasse was created by the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) and by his government.
Regardless of that fact, Mr. Speaker, I have made some attempt this evening to be constructive, although that is very difficult to do at certain times. I suggest the only way out of this very difficult impasse, which exists not only in this house but in this country itself, is to hold a plebiscite. If the results of that plebiscite indicate that a substantial majority is in favour of the proposed flag design then it should be adopted. If a majority indicates a preference for another flag, that flag should be adopted. If only something less than a majority indicates a preference toward any particular design then the matter should be referred to a parliamentary committee. I think that is the
only way of solving this impasse which has. become extremely difficult not only for this house but for the country as a whole. This continued debate is divisive and costly. I do not think any group here will be able to force a view on another. There must be a little give and take on all sides, and I hope all members in this house will realize that fact. I am sorry that some hon. members opposite apparently do not agree.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the flag presently proposed by the government is unfortunately regarded as a partisan flag in a great many places in this country. I agree that perhaps the country as a whole does not take that view. We cannot adopt a flag to represent national unity, our ideals and ambitions for the future, that is in any way regarded as a partisan flag. For that reason I hope that the hon. members of this house will make an attempt to co-operate and perhaps make concessions so that we can make some arrangements for the adoption or retention of a Canadian national flag. I do not suggest that what I have proposed is perfect.
In a rather witty and humorous way a number of members have pointed out some theoretical objections to my proposal, and although I do not feel they are practical, I will admit that there are difficulties. I am not narrow minded in respect of this matter and will be glad to listen to any other suggestions hon. members wish to make, particularly those hon. members on the government side. Someone must make some suggestions if we are to conclude this debate. Members of parties other than the government party have made suggestions. Those suggestions may not be entirely suitable, but as long as the suggestions are being made I think we are progressing.
Mr. Speaker, I see that it is now 10.30 so I will resume my seat.


[Stage Direction]
It being thirty minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, August 19, 1964